S Transport for Surrey
TRANSPORT EVALUATION FOR WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL'S CORE STRATEGY
2026 Transport Assessment Report
Project Title: Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council's Core Strategy
Document Title: 2026 Transport Assessment Report
Client Reference:
Date: 12 April 2010
Prepared By: Print Emma Brundle
Sign
Authorised By: Print Steve Howard
Sign
Amendment List Iss. / Rev. Iss. / Rev Remove Insert Date Page Iss. / Rev. Page Iss. / Rev. Issue 3 08/04/10 Section 6 – AQMA’s Waverley’s Comments
0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\Project-current\3380\projects\Waverley\Reports\WaverleyLDFReportv2.doc
Issue No. 01 Page 2 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1 INTRODUCTION 6 1.2 Objectives 6 1.3 Scope 6 1.4 Report Structure 7 2 MODEL DESCRIPTION 8 2.1 Context 8 2.2 Vehicle Types 8 2.3 Time Period 8 2.4 Assignment Method 8 2.5 Zoning System 8 3 TRIP RATE ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES 11 3.1 Residential Planning Data 11 3.2 Commercial Planning Data 11 3.3 Scenarios 12 3.4 TRICS 13 3.5 TRICS Methodology 13 3.6 Commercial Developments 16 3.7 TEMPRO Methodology 16 3.8 Additional Trips per Zone 16 4 FORECAST MATRICES 24 4.1 Do-Minimum Forecast 24 4.2 2026 Do-Something Forecasts 24 4.3 Trunk Road Select Link Matrices 28 5 MODELLING RESULTS AD ANALYSES 38 5.1 Summary Statistics 38 5.2 Largest Increases in Additional Trips 41 5.3 Traffic Impacts 43 5.4 Borough Bandwidth Plots 47 6 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS (AQMA) 68 6.1 Overview of Areas 68 6.2 AQMA Summary Statistics 68 7 CONCLUSIONS 73 7.1 Summary 73 7.2 Traffic Impacts of Development 73
Issue No. 01 Page 3 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Surrey County Council (SCC) is assisting Waverley Borough Council (WBC) with the development of their Local Development Framework (LDF). WBC need to consider the impact that their proposed development strategy will have on the highway network within the borough.
The key objective of this evaluation is to provide an assessment of the transport impact from future development and the sensitivity of the highway network with regard to traffic distribution from the proposed development.
The model used for the evaluation was SCC’s County Model (SINTRAM). SINTRAM is a strategic traffic model that covers the key road network in Surrey. The county model makes use of three vehicle types: Cars, Light Good Vehicles (LGVs) and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and at present only assesses the AM peak hour (0800 – 0900). The base year of the model is 2005 and the future forecast year is 2026.
WBC provided SCC with planning data that is proposed to occur in the borough between 2005 and 2026. The data was provided in accordance with the models zoning system and consisted of residential data only. Commercial forecasts were obtained from TEMPRO. From this data two future year scenarios were created, Scenario A and Scenario B. 2026 Scenario A consisted only of developments that already have been approved by planning permission, whereas 2026 Scenario B consisted of all developments irrespective of whether they have received planning permission or not.
The amount of trips projected to be generated from all developments stated in WBC’s planning data was calculated using the Trip Rate Information and Computer System (TRICS) database. These projections of trip generation along with TEMPROs growth factors for commercial developments were imported into the future 2026 matrices of the test scenarios to produce future matrices and projections of traffic flows.
In addition to the two test scenarios (Scenario A and Scenario B), two other reference scenarios were incorporated. Firstly a 2005 Base year scenario was used to reflect the road network at the present time. Secondly a 2026 Do-Minimum scenario was created to act as a reference case to the two test scenarios. The 2026 Do-Minimum scenario retains the Waverley borough trips at 2005 base year levels but all other external trips grow at rates as forecast by the DfT’s TEMPRO database.
Two networks were used in the modelling process, a 2005 and 2026 network. The 2005 network reflects the road network in its current state. The 2026 network is the same as the 2005 but includes the Highways Agency’s Hindhead Improvement Scheme. This is because the Hindhead scheme is programmed to open to traffic in 2011, and inclusion of this scheme in the assessment will produce a more robust and representative analysis of future traffic conditions.
The total number of estimated additional departures in the Borough of Waverley for Scenario A is 720 and 218 arrivals. Whilst in Scenario B, the estimated total number of additional departures is 1,686 and 2,582 additional arrivals.
The model predicts that total non-trunk traffic flow within Waverley during the AM peak hour would increase by approximately 10,100vkm (3.2%) in 2026 Scenario A when
Issue No. 01 Page 4 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
compared to the 2026 Do-Minimum. In 2026 Scenario B, traffic flow would increase by approximately 36,400 (11%) when compared with 2026 Scenario A.
The model predicts that total trunk road traffic flow generated within Waverley during the AM peak hour would increase by 1,300vkm (3.9%) in 2026 Scenario A when compared to the 2026 Do-Minimum. In 2026 Scenario B, trunk road traffic flow would increase by approximately 3,100 (9%) when compared to 2026 Scenario A.
The main areas in the Borough of Waverley which are most affected by the additional trips generated from the proposed developments are the four main urban settlements: Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Haslemere. Specifically Farnham, the A31 corridor, between the Runfold Junction and Hickleys Corner, could potentially be impacted by a general increase in link and junction delay.
With regard to the three AQMA sites within Waverley, all sites could potentially be impacted by the new trips generated from the forecast planning data. None of the these traffic impacts are significant but it was found that 2026 Scenario B produced the largest impacts when compared to 2026 Scenario A.
Scenario B is the scenario that generates the largest amount of additional trips and presents the largest traffic impacts within the context of this evaluation. A general trend from the outputs is that Scenario B has the greatest impacts on the local traffic flows in Waverley, when compared to 2026 Scenario A. However, none of the impacts produced from 2026 Scenario B are of a significant amount to cause disruption or lead to major improvement measures on the road network in the Borough of Waverley.
Issue No. 01 Page 5 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Waverley Borough Council (WBC) is in the process of developing their Local Development Framework (LDF). As part of the LDF and to inform the Core Strategy, WBC need to present and consult on their preferred options for development in the borough. One of the aspects that need to be considered when developing the preferred options is the impact that the development strategy will have on movement and transport. In February 2009, WBC commissioned Surrey County Council’s (SCC) Transport Studies Team to evaluate the transport implications for future developments identified in their draft Core Strategy.
1.1.2 SCC is working in partnership with WBC, assisting with the development of their LDF. This assistance includes the provision of technical expertise to ensure that the resulting LDF will pass all the “test of soundness” and meet SCC policies and objectives.
1.1.3 The main aims of the evaluation are to:
• Determine the sensitivity of the highway network to the distribution of development within the borough. • Provide a general assessment of the transport impact from future development within Waverley for the forecast year of 2026.
1.1.4 This report considers the impacts of the LDF between 2005 and 2026. The evaluation will also focus upon identified Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) in Waverley (see Section 6).
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 The main objectives of the evaluation were to:
• Identify the locations and estimates of additional commercial and residential development in the borough; • Calculate the distribution of vehicle trips resulting from the additional development; • Prepare a 2026 traffic forecast based on these developments; • Compare the resulting 2026 traffic forecasts for each development scenario against a suitable reference; • Report the main traffic impacts and conclusions arising.
1.3 Scope
1.3.1 The study will use the existing County Model (SINTRAM). This model is currently an AM peak hour model, and study will be based upon this time period. The model base year is 2005, and the future forecast year is 2026.
1.3.2 For comparison purposes a 2026 Do-Minimum scenario was developed as a reference. This is described later in paragraph 4.1.3. Two networks were used in the modelling process: a 2005 network and 2026 network. The 2005 base network replicates the road network in its current state, whereas the 2026 network is the
Issue No. 01 Page 6 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
same as 2005 but includes the Highways Agency’s Hindhead Improvement Scheme, which is currently under construction. There are no other committed highway schemes in the area so the Hindhead Scheme is the only highway alteration involved in the forecasting. Forecasts based on WBC scenarios are developed using traffic generation rates derived from the TRICS database and TEMPRO growth factors, in conjunction with the County’s transport model (SINTRAM).
1.4 Report Structure
1.4.1 This document describes both the methodology and transport evaluation. It has been split into the main tasks as listed below:
- Section 2: A description of the model and its constraints; - Section 3: The estimation of trip rates for the proposed developments and scenarios; - Section 4: The development and summary results of the 2026 forecast year trip matrices used in the model; - Section 5: The detailed results and network analysis from the model; - Section 6: Results of analysis concerning the AQMA sites; and - Section 7: Main conclusions and summary of the evaluation.
Issue No. 01 Page 7 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
2 MODEL DESCRIPTION
2.1 Context
2.1.1 The County model (SINTRAM version 3.3 /100204Wav_V2) was used to evaluate the development proposals. This is a strategic model that encapsulates the road network of Surrey and its surrounding local authorities; at a national level the model incorporates all strategic roads within Great Britain.
2.1.2 All motorways, A and B roads together with some local roads are explicitly modelled within SINTRAM. Where traffic junctions and traffic signals are likely to have significant effects, the details of their general layout or the timing of the signals are also included in the modelling. However, strategic modelling uses aggregate descriptions of traffic such as flow, density and speed, and the relationships between them and hence does not include every road or junction. As a result the model is unable to answer detailed questions regarding traffic interactions, such as queuing and individual driver behaviour. It can, however, provide approximate answers to a wide range of transport problems (i.e. re- distribution effects), making it a reasonable tool for the initial transport assessment for Waverley’s Core Strategy at the area wide level.
2.2 Vehicle Types
2.2.1 Cars, LGVs (light goods vehicles) and HGVs (heavy goods vehicles) are separately represented in the model. Trips by public transport are not modelled.
2.3 Time Period
2.3.1 The evaluation was performed in the AM peak hour time period (0800 – 0900 hours).
2.4 Assignment Method
2.4.1 A fixed matrix equilibrium assignment was performed for 30 iterations using the Method of Successive Averages (MSA). This is an assignment using volume averaging with (optional) Burrell type perturbations. The assignment allocates given travel demand (a set of trips with fixed origins and destinations) on the travel network (roads and junctions) in order to obtain distribution of the traffic flow. The resulting traffic flow represents the average conditions for the time period under study.
2.5 Zoning System
2.5.1 The Borough of Waverley was split into multiple zones (37 in total) to match the zoning system of the traffic model (SINTRAM version 3.3), to which the planning data was allocated. The zoning system of the county model is based on the national census output areas.
2.5.2 Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the location of the 37 modelled zones in the Borough of Waverley.
Issue No. 01 Page 8 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
N
Key WBC Zone Boundary 471 Zone Numbers
Issue No. 01 Page 9 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Figure 2.1: Waverley Borough Zone Plan
Issue No. 01 Page 10 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
N Key WBC Zone Boundary 471 Zone Numbers
Figure 2.2: Waverley Borough zone plan, focused on the area of Farnham
Issue No. 01 Page 11 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
3 TRIP RATE ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL SITES
3.1 Residential Planning Data
3.1.1 Planning data concerning residential developments forecast to occur between 2005 and 2026 in the Borough of Waverley was presented to SCC’s Transport Studies Team in August 2009.
3.1.2 WBC provided the residential planning data in the form of three sub-categories that relates to the planning status of the developments. The three residential sub- categories of development are:
• Completions: residential units that have been approved by planning permission and construction has been completed. Units included are dated between 2005 and 2009. • Outstanding Permissions: residential units that have been approved by planning permission but have not yet been constructed. • Outstanding Allocation: WBC’s remaining Strategic Housing Allocation.
3.1.3 The Completions and Outstanding Permissions data informed the amount of houses and flats, with the number of bedrooms, that has or is estimated to occur within each zone of Waverley between the base and forecast year.
3.1.4 WBC could not provide any information concerning the Outstanding Allocation of residential units, with reference to the composition and distribution.
3.1.5 It was therefore agreed that the number of units categorised as Outstanding Allocation was to be calculated by deducting the amount of units classified as Completions and Outstanding Permissions from the Strategic Housing Allocation of the borough (5,000 units). To distribute the units categorised as the Outstanding Allocation, WBC instructed SCC to only distribute to the zones which covered the four main urban settlements of the Borough; Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh. It was thought most appropriate to proportion the Outstanding Allocation to the population of each zone classified as part of the four main urban settlements. The previous trend of house/flat and bedroom composition from the Completions and Outstanding Permissions was applied.
3.1.6 It was agreed by WBC and SCC to use gross figures for the residential planning data, due to the difference between the gross and net figures being minimal. Therefore all residential data will be additional developments.
3.1.7 See Appendices A and B for a summary of the residential planning data provided by WBC.
3.2 Commercial Planning Data
3.2.1 WBC has minimal history of employment land use in the borough, however they recently commissioned an Employment Land Review (ELR). The ELR concluded that “…provision is sufficiently flexible to allow for the following net additional increases in floorspace by land use type (up to 2026) 46,335 in B1a, B1b and B1c; and 6,516 warehousing / B8.” However, due to no detail being provided
Issue No. 01 Page 12 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
concerning the distribution of future commercial floorspace it was thought best to use TEMPRO forecasts instead. Growth factors concerning jobs (commercial developments) were extracted from TEMPRO for every modelled zone in Waverley.
3.2.2 WBC was also able to provide additional details of three large commercial developments, these developments being: East Street Redevelopment in Farnham; Key Site in Godalming; and Milford Hospital in Milford.
3.3 Scenarios
3.3.1 WBC provided details of whether each development had been approved by planning permission or not. Status of planning permission affects the implications of developments because it is not possible to influence developments that have received planning permission.
3.3.2 It was thought most appropriate by SCC to create two test scenarios: Scenario A and Scenario B. Scenario A refers only to proposed developments between 2005 and 2026 that have been approved by planning permission. Whereas Scenario B includes all developments proposed to occur between 2005 and 2026, irrespective of whether they have received planning permission (i.e. approved and non- approved developments). Both scenarios exclude windfalls.
3.3.3 It should be noted that WBC suggested including a larger number of scenarios to test the distribution of the planning data categorised as the Outstanding Allocation. However, SCC informed WBC that a large amount of their suggestions were unlikely to produce any significant differences in the model outputs when using a strategic model. SCC therefore advised that two scenarios would be sufficient. See Appendix C for email correspondence.
3.3.4 There is potential for large developments to occur within neighbouring boroughs and counties of Waverley between the present day and 2026. Examples of such potential developments are the Bordon/Whitehill Eco-Town, Aldershot Urban Extension, Guildford Hub and Horsham. Due to a lack of certainty and trip generation data for these developments they were not included within this transport evaluation. However, further assessment may be required if relevant data (e.g. greater trip generation data or a Transport Assessment) for these development areas become available in the future.
Approved Developments (Scenario A) Non-approved Developments (Scenario B) Development Category Development Sub-Category Development Category Development Sub-Category Residential Completions Residential Outstanding Allocation Residential Outstanding Permissions Commercial All Commercial Developments Table 3.1: Planning data defined by planning status, approved and non-approved developments.
3.3.5 Therefore the only difference between the two scenarios is the proportion of developments that have been approved and non-approved by planning permission.
Issue No. 01 Page 13 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
3.4 TRICS
3.4.1 Development trip rates have been obtained from the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database, version 2009(b).
3.4.2 A trip rate refers to the amount of trips generated by a development. These include both trips that arrive and depart at a development.
3.4.3 The TRICS database stores information recorded from past surveys completed in the UK for a range of locations and land uses, counting the number of vehicular trips made to and from individual sites. The TRICS database allows users to select sites that are relevant and have similar criteria to a site in question. This enables the estimation of trip rates to and from proposed developments based on past surveyed sites.
3.4.4 Due to WBC not being able to provide planning data concerning commercial developments, the only land uses interrogated within TRICS consisted of houses privately owned and flats privately owned.
3.4.5 It should be noted that the TRICS database is a subjective tool. This is because personal choice and judgement plays a leading role in decision making when choosing appropriate sites to compare with the proposed development.
3.5 TRICS Methodology
3.5.1 TRICS Good Practice Guide 2009 was followed for the interrogation of the database to determine appropriate comparative sites.
3.5.2 Trip rates produced from the TRICS database were calculated as a trip rate estimate per bedroom for residential developments. Trip rate estimates were then multiplied by the number of bedrooms relevant to the house or flat for each development, by modelled zone.
3.5.3 It was necessary to create different trip rates for each type of residential dwelling (house or flat). Different trip rates also needed to be extracted to appropriate corresponding TRICS locations. The TRICS database classifies all surveys conducted at a development as one of the following locations: town centre; edge of town centre; neighbourhood centre; suburban area; edge of town; free standing. See Appendix D for the TRICS definitions for each location.
3.5.4 The residential planning data did not provide addresses of each development. Therefore it was necessary to award and proportion TRICS locations to entire zones of the Borough of Waverley. Table 3.2 shows the TRICS locations assigned to the zones of Waverley.
3.5.5 Three vehicle types are modelled within SINTRAM: Cars, LGVs and HGVs. Consequently vehicle proportions were calculated for these vehicle types from the corresponding surveys in the TRICS databases.
Issue No. 01 Page 14 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Zone Zone Name TRICS Location Comments No. 50% Edge of Town Northern half of the zone (north of Monks Walk), is primarily residential and at the edge of Farnham town. 71 Alice Holt 50% Free Standing Southern half of the zone is very rural and sparse, containing Alice Holt Forest and Bourne Wood. 80% Neighbourhood Centre Majority of the zone contains residential housing with local amenities, such as a school and local shops. 75 Badshot Lea 20% Suburban Area The southern area of the zone (running parallel with the A31) is a small area used for industrial purposes. 60% Town Centre In the centre of the zone is the western part of Farnham town centre, containing a key link, West Street. 98 Farnham-West St 40% Edge of Town Centre Peripheral areas of the zone in walking distance to the town centre. Land use of businesses and public amenities. 108 Farnham – Compton 100% Suburban Area Entire zone is centred on a residential land use and has local amenities such as schools and local shops. 30% Suburban Area The northern area of the zone (bordering the A31) contains an area of industrial land e.g. sand quarries. 109 Runfold 70% Edge of Town Remainder of the zone is relatively sparse but contains an area of residential housing. 124 Farnham Hospitals 100% Edge of Town Centre Zone is in walking distance to town centre and contains a mixture of land uses. E.g. hospital and local businesses. 80% Edge of Town Farnham Park is within walking distance to Farnham town centre, but is a large and rural area. 125 Farnham Park 20% Edge of Town Centre South-west area of the zone in close proximity to Farnham town centre and covers Surrey Institute of Art and Design. 126 Farnham Station 100% Edge of Town Centre Main focus of the zone is Farnham train station. Parking facilities also present within walking distance to town centre. 127 Farnham Town Centre 100% Town Centre Zone covers Farnham town centre. Farnham-Weydon Ln & 300 100% Neighbourhood Centre Entire zone comprised of a large residential area with local amenities such as schools and recreation grounds. Shortheath 309 Farnham-Firgrove Hill 100% Neighbourhood Centre Primary land use in the zone is residential. Also features Farnham College. 30% Neighbourhood Centre Multiple small villages located within a predominantly rural zone e.g. Tilford, Frensham and Churt. 319 Frensham & Tilford 70% Free Standing Rest of the zone is very remote and rural. 15% Neighbourhood Centre Small proportion of the zone contains sparse settlements and villages, such as Elstead and Thursley. 320 Elstead & Thursley 85% Free Standing Rest of the zone is very remote and rural. Bramley & Winkworth 10% Neighbourhood Centre Few settlements scattered throughout and also cover the village of Bramley, (surrounding the A281). 321 Arboretum 90% Free Standing Rest of the zone is very remote and rural. 5% Neighbourhood Centre Very small amount of settlements in the zone, and these are predominantly in the village of Chiddingfold. 322 Chiddingfold & Dunsfold 95% Free Standing Rest of the zone is very remote and rural. 15% Neighbourhood Centre Small amount of settlements in the zone, centred on the A283. 323 Witley 85% Free Standing Rest of the zone is very rural with large open spaces. 30% Suburban Area Dunsfold Aerodrome and other small businesses associated with this are located in the west area of the zone. 324 Alfold 70% Free Standing The remaining area of the zone is very rural with small-scattered settlements. 30% Town Centre Cranleigh town centre is located in the centre and eastern edge of the zone. 325 Cranleigh Town Centre 70% Edge of Town Rest of the zone contains a mixture of land uses (residential and industrial) but in a rural landscape. 20% Neighbourhood Centre Small village of Ewhurst is located in the centre of the zone. Individual dwellings scattered throughout the zone. 326 Ewhurst 80% Free Standing Rest of the zone is remote and rural. 327 Haslemere-Shottermill 100% Neighbourhood Centre The entire zone is a residential area with public services and amenities, such as the hospital and school.
Issue No. 01 Page 15 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Zone Zone Name TRICS Location Comments No. 20% Town Centre Haslemere town centre is located in the centre of the zone. 328 Haslemere 60% Edge of Town Centre Surrounding the town centre is an area that has urban characteristics and is within walking distance to the town centre. 20% Edge of Town A small proportion of the zone (south-east and north-west corners) is sparse and rural. The town meets the countryside. 40% Neighbourhood Centre Central to the zone is Hindhead, which is a predominantly residential settlement. 329 Hindhead 60% Free Standing The rest of the zone is very rural and has few scattered settlements. 50% Neighbourhood Centre Milford located in the centre of the zone. Transport links of a train station and is in very close proximity to the A3. 330 Milford 50% Edge of Town The perimeter of the zone (north-west corner) is an area of land where settlements begin to spread into the countryside. 70% Neighbourhood Centre Majority of the zone is residential land and contains public services for this area, in the form of schools and local shops. 331 Wrecclesham 30% Edge of Town Land close to the perimeter of zone (exception to east boundary) has open space and borders woodlands e.g. Alice Holt. 70% Neighbourhood Centre Northern half of the zone is primarily a residential area. Multiple schools and recreation areas serve the zone. 332 Farnham – Hale 30% Edge of Town Rest of the zone (southern section and western perimeter) has large areas of open space, including Farnham Park. 40% Edge of Town Centre Western area of the zone (bordering Cranleigh town centre) is a residential area but in close proximity to town centre. 333 Cranleigh East 60% Free Standing The eastern part of the zone is very rural and has few settlements within it. 25% Neighbourhood Centre Surrounding the B2128 Guildford Road is a small isolated residential area, small businesses scattered within the zone. 334 Shamley Green 75% Free Standing The rest of the zone is very rural and within the countryside. 50% Neighbourhood Centre The western half of the zone covers the village of Wonersh. 335 Wonersh 50% Free Standing The eastern half of the zone is rural and includes large areas of open space. 336 Farnham-Weybourne West 100% Neighbourhood Centre Zone covers part of Weybourne and Heath End. Both areas are residential located between Farnham and Aldershot. 15% Edge of Town Centre Land at the northern edge of the zone (bordering the A3100) is close to Godalming town centre. 337 Godalming-Busbridge 85% Neighbourhood Centre Rest of the zone has the main land use is residential. Schools and recreation grounds are also present. 60% Town Centre The eastern half of the zone covers Godalming town centre. 338 Godalming Town Centre 40% Edge of Town Centre Western half of zone is relatively urban but contains more characteristics of an edge of town location e.g. less dense. 339 Godalming-Charterhouse 100% Neighbourhood Centre Zone covers exterior area to Farncombe; mainly residential area with public facilities such as schools e.g. Charterhouse. 340 Farncombe 100% Neighbourhood Centre Farncombe village is located within this zone, and includes facilities such as a train station and local leisure centre. 341 Binscombe 100% Neighbourhood Centre Area of land that has a primary land use of residential housing. 468 Farnham-Dippenhall 100% Free Standing Zone is very rural and has few areas of settlements, Dippenhall being one. 50% Neighbourhood Centre Middle and Lower Bourne both located in the northern half of the zone. Primarily residential land uses. 471 Farnham-The Bournes 50% Edge of Town The southern half of zone encompassing The Bourne, more rural and is an area where rural and urban land uses merge. 503 Farnham-Weybourne East 100% Neighbourhood Centre Entire zone is a residential area located between Farnham and Aldershot towns. Multiple schools located in this zone. Table 3.2: Zones within the Borough of Waverley classified and proportioned to TRICS locations
Issue No. 01 Page 16 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
3.6 Commercial Developments
3.6.1 The details WBC provided concerning the three large commercial developments indicated that the East Street and Key Site developments were mixed uses, but the Milford Hospital development was an entirely residential development.
3.6.2 It became apparent that SCC held Transport Assessments (TA), produced by RPS Transport, for the East Street and Key Site developments. It was therefore thought most appropriate to use the trip generation projections from these TAs than to create new trip rates from TRICS.
3.6.3 A TA does not exist for Milford Hospital development, but as it is a completely residential development trip rates were generated using the TRICS database.
3.7 TEMPRO Methodology
3.7.1 Commercial growth factors were extracted for the weekday AM peak period (0700 – 0959), using a base year of 2005 and a future year of 2026, for all journey purposes from TEMPRO. TEMPRO V5.4 was used.
3.7.2 The county model, SINTRAM, models three vehicle types (Cars, LGVs and HGVs). TEMPRO’s mode entitled “Car Driver” for “All Purposes” was used to represent Car. To retrieve representative figures for LGV and HGV, growth factors were extracted for “Car Driver” using the Non-Home Based Employers Business purpose. This methodology coincides with the methodology used to create the 2026 Do-Minimum matrices.
3.7.3 It was assumed that all additional commercial trips generated from such TEMPRO growth factors would have a status of being unapproved by planning permission. This was assumed as potentially only four years (2005 – 2009) worth of developments could be approved by planning permission. This would be a minimal proportion of the total amount of commercial growth and is a small amount of growth to show significant outputs in a strategic model.
3.8 Additional Trips per Zone
3.8.1 Tables 3.3 to 3.5 show the estimated departures and arrivals for the proposed development by zone during the AM peak hour (0800 – 0900) for Scenarios A (approved developments only) and B (approved and non-approved developments), using a base year of 2005 and the forecast year of 2026. The total number of departures in Waverley for Scenario A is 720 and 218 arrivals. Whilst in Scenario B, the estimated number of departures is 1,686 and 2,582 arrivals.
Issue No. 01 Page 17 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Total Additional Trips Zone Additional Departures Additional Arrivals Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 71 7.9 7.1 0.7 0.1 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.0 75 2.1 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 98 9.3 8.5 0.7 0.1 3.9 3.5 0.4 0.0 108 11.3 10.3 0.9 0.1 3.7 3.3 0.3 0.0 109 13.9 12.8 1.1 0.1 4.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 124 25.6 23.6 1.7 0.2 10.3 9.4 0.9 0.1 125 3.8 3.5 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 126 3.0 2.8 0.2 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 127 8.1 7.3 0.7 0.1 3.5 3.1 0.3 0.0 300 25.2 22.8 2.1 0.2 6.1 5.5 0.5 0.1 309 9.8 9.0 0.7 0.1 2.5 2.3 0.2 0.0 319 10.4 9.4 0.9 0.1 2.9 2.6 0.2 0.0 320 29.9 26.5 3.1 0.3 8.9 7.8 0.9 0.1 321 8.8 8.0 0.7 0.1 2.5 2.3 0.2 0.0 322 15.8 14.3 1.4 0.1 5.4 4.9 0.5 0.1 323 33.5 31.1 2.2 0.2 8.9 8.2 0.6 0.1 324 2.4 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 325 9.1 8.2 0.8 0.1 4.5 4.0 0.4 0.0 326 2.8 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 327 41.6 38.6 2.7 0.3 10.9 10.2 0.7 0.1 328 64.7 58.4 5.6 0.6 28.3 25.3 2.7 0.3 329 62.1 57.5 4.2 0.5 16.6 15.3 1.1 0.1 330 25.0 23.0 1.9 0.2 6.7 6.1 0.5 0.1 331 67.2 59.7 6.8 0.7 16.7 14.8 1.7 0.2 332 18.5 16.5 1.8 0.2 4.6 4.1 0.5 0.0 333 39.3 35.3 3.6 0.4 14.2 12.7 1.4 0.1 334 5.3 4.8 0.5 0.1 1.5 1.4 0.2 0.0 335 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.0 2.6 2.4 0.2 0.0 336 3.5 3.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0 337 34.3 31.0 3.0 0.3 9.0 8.2 0.8 0.1 338 30.4 28.6 1.6 0.2 8.6 7.9 0.6 0.1 339 31.1 28.7 2.2 0.2 8.0 7.4 0.5 0.1 340 30.4 28.2 2.0 0.2 7.9 7.4 0.5 0.1 341 4.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 468 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 471 21.9 19.7 1.9 0.2 5.8 5.2 0.5 0.1 503 4.0 3.6 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 Total 720 655 58 6 218 198 18 2 Table 3.3: Estimated additional departures and arrivals in the AM peak (0800 – 0900) for Scenario A 2005 – 2026 by vehicle type for the proposed developments.
Issue No. 01 Page 18 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Total Additional Trips Zone Additional Departures Additional Arrivals Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 71 18.5 12.5 3.6 2.3 25.0 21.8 2.4 0.8 75 14.4 7.7 3.8 2.9 49.8 41.3 5.3 3.2 98 33.2 18.2 8.4 6.7 21.4 19.2 1.9 0.3 108 20.3 14.3 3.7 2.4 17.9 15.5 1.8 0.6 109 21.3 16.5 3.2 1.6 23.1 20.0 2.2 0.9 124 47.5 34.1 8.3 5.1 103.1 88.7 9.5 4.9 125 10.2 6.1 2.3 1.8 15.7 13.6 1.5 0.6 126 15.5 8.7 3.8 3.0 18.9 16.4 1.8 0.7 127 131.5 113.1 15.5 2.9 57.5 49.7 6.6 1.2 300 74.4 46.0 16.1 12.3 99.1 88.5 8.3 2.3 309 33.0 20.1 7.2 5.6 51.0 45.1 4.5 1.4 319 28.2 12.4 8.6 7.1 28.1 22.4 3.2 2.6 320 40.9 28.4 8.0 4.5 54.1 43.4 5.8 4.8 321 24.0 11.3 6.7 6.0 45.8 36.2 4.5 5.1 322 26.9 16.3 6.0 4.6 84.7 64.8 13.7 6.2 323 44.8 32.8 7.2 4.9 39.0 31.8 4.0 3.1 324 14.8 4.3 5.8 4.7 9.1 6.7 1.3 1.1 325 43.4 24.8 11.5 7.1 98.7 80.9 11.7 6.1 326 12.5 4.1 4.5 3.8 18.7 13.9 2.5 2.3 327 91.7 64.6 17.4 9.7 173.7 150.8 16.2 6.7 328 104.3 81.8 15.6 6.9 133.2 114.6 12.8 5.8 329 97.0 71.9 16.2 8.8 99.6 87.7 8.6 3.3 330 35.8 24.5 6.8 4.5 27.3 22.7 2.8 1.9 331 108.8 76.9 20.2 11.7 93.6 82.1 8.5 3.0 332 61.4 34.4 15.2 11.8 102.3 89.2 9.7 3.4 333 81.5 54.9 16.9 9.7 141.7 118.6 14.7 8.3 334 15.3 7.2 5.9 2.3 23.1 18.7 2.9 1.4 335 11.0 3.9 4.4 2.7 28.2 22.6 3.9 1.6 336 51.3 23.2 15.9 12.2 111.1 94.7 10.2 6.2 337 63.5 47.7 10.6 5.2 160.6 137.4 15.1 8.0 338 41.8 38.5 3.0 0.3 39.6 36.1 3.2 0.3 339 62.4 47.6 9.2 5.6 169.9 143.4 15.6 10.9 340 76.0 49.0 16.6 10.4 162.2 138.6 14.0 9.6 341 37.6 22.3 8.9 6.4 115.4 99.8 10.8 4.8 468 3.4 2.1 0.8 0.6 3.2 2.9 0.3 0.1 471 53.2 34.8 10.8 7.7 71.8 62.8 6.8 2.2 503 34.9 15.8 10.9 8.2 64.7 55.2 5.8 3.7 Total 1,686 1,133 340 214 2,582 2,198 254 130 Table 3.4: Estimated additional departures and arrivals in the AM peak (0800 – 0900) for Scenario B 2005 – 2026 by vehicle type for the proposed developments.
3.8.2 In summary Table 3.5 below presents the proportion of commercial and residential additional trips by scenario and forecast year.
Issue No. 01 Page 19 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Proportion of Trips Development Type Both Departures and Departures Arrivals Arrivals Scenario A 2005 – 2026 Commercial 0% 0% 0% Residential 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Scenario B 2005 – 2026 Commercial 50% 57% 52% Residential 50% 43% 48% Total 100% 100% 100% Table 3.5: Proportion of additional trips by type of development and scenario.
3.8.3 This illustrates that no additional trips generated by commercial development are present in Scenario A. This is because none of the commercial development has been approved by planning permission.
3.8.4 Figures 3.1 to 3.4 show plots of disposition of allocated growth for both commercial and residential development sites in percentage terms by departures and arrivals in Waverley for 2026 Scenarios A and B respectively. (The areas of the pie chart diagrams show the allocated growth).
3.8.5 It can be seen that Scenario B contains commercial development where Scenario A does not. A larger proportion of departure trips are present in Scenario A, whereas arrival trips are slightly more dominant in Scenario B. The disposition of growth is predominant in the four main urban settlements of the borough: Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Haslemere.
Issue No. 01 Page 20 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Allocated Commercial Dev.
Allocated Residential Dev.
Figure 3.1: 2026 Scenario A disposition of development growth by departures
Allocated Commercial Dev.
Allocated Residential Dev.
Figure 3.2: 2026 Scenario A disposition of development growth by arrivals
Issue No. 01 Page 21 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Allocated Commercial Dev.
Allocated Residential Dev.
Figure 3.3: 2026 Scenario B disposition of development growth by departures
Allocated Commercial Dev.
Allocated Residential Dev.
Figure 3.4: 2026 Scenario B disposition of development growths by arrivals
Issue No. 01 Page 22 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
3.8.6 Trip ends are the total number of trips that either have an origin (origin trip ends) or destination (destination trip ends) within the defined modelled zone.
3.8.7 The model base year is 2005. Trip ends from the 2005 matrix (reference 2005_Wav a derivative of SINTRAM Ref 2005_RB_MV_GU_WK) were extracted for zones within the Borough of Waverley. To acquire 2026 trip ends for Waverley, these 2005 trip ends were summed with the estimated trips from 2005 to 2026 produced from the TRICS database and TEMPRO (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4).
3.8.8 2026 matrices were created using the Waverley 2026 Do-Minimum matrix and combining this with the new estimated trip ends generated from WBC planning data. The trip ends were distributed using a growth factor method. This process was initially performed for Scenario A and again for Scenario B. However, to create Scenario B, Scenario A was used as the starting point instead of the 2026 Do-Minimum (refer to Section 4 for further detail). The creation of multiple scenarios enables comparisons and reference cases to be used, providing the results with more relevance. The 2026 Do-Minimum acts as a reference case for Scenario A and Scenario A a reference case for Scenario B.
3.8.9 Table 3.6 displays trip ends for the three forecast scenarios (2026 Do-Minimum, 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B). Trip ends for the 2005 base matrix are not shown, as these are exactly the same as the 2026 Do-Minimum. This is due to the methodology used to create the Do-Minimum scenario retaining the study area at 2005 base year levels.
3.8.10 Due to a growth factor method being used to combine the new trip ends produced from WBC planning data with the 2026 Do-Minimum, extra growth is caused to occur as well as the additional trip ends. These differences can be seen from comparing Tables 3.3 and 3.4 with 3.6. Therefore the growth factor method allows a more representative method of forecasting.
Issue No. 01 Page 23 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
ORIGIN DESTINATION Zone Difference: Difference: Difference: Difference: 2026 2026 2026 2026 No. 2026 Do-Min Scen A – Do- Scen B – Scen 2026 Do-Min Scen A – Do- Scen B – Scen Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B Min A Min A 71 118 125 140 7 15 38 40 65 2 25 75 155 157 174 2 17 191 192 244 1 52 98 340 351 385 11 34 13 16 34 3 18 108 118 128 142 10 14 30 34 48 4 14 109 80 94 103 14 9 43 47 68 4 21 124 280 305 337 25 32 409 424 524 15 100 125 91 95 104 4 9 55 56 70 1 14 126 157 160 178 3 18 39 40 59 1 19 127 173 182 314 9 132 237 242 300 5 58 300 617 645 713 28 68 95 102 198 7 96 309 291 302 335 11 33 73 76 127 3 51 319 390 402 432 12 30 174 178 204 4 26 320 223 254 272 31 18 199 213 267 14 54 321 343 352 377 9 25 290 293 337 3 44 322 248 264 282 16 18 282 300 402 18 102 323 250 285 304 35 19 176 187 219 11 32 324 280 283 304 3 21 58 58 68 0 10 325 422 433 481 11 48 386 392 490 6 98 326 218 221 236 3 15 103 105 126 2 21 327 674 717 788 43 71 436 450 618 14 168 328 378 444 497 66 53 311 341 449 30 108 329 513 576 627 63 51 162 182 271 20 89 330 238 264 282 26 18 125 133 155 8 22 331 575 643 703 68 60 129 148 229 19 81 332 597 617 677 20 60 295 299 400 4 101 333 552 592 652 40 60 318 337 474 19 137 334 297 303 322 6 19 148 151 172 3 21 335 167 170 183 3 13 115 121 150 6 29 336 652 657 724 5 67 217 222 343 5 121 337 326 361 402 35 41 549 565 727 16 162 338 935 967 1005 32 38 836 848 881 12 33 339 278 309 351 31 42 461 476 656 15 180 340 630 661 726 31 65 508 522 693 14 171 341 397 403 449 6 46 287 290 412 3 122 468 31 32 35 1 3 4 4 8 0 4 471 407 430 473 23 43 111 119 188 8 69 503 454 460 504 6 44 134 138 208 4 70 Total 12,895 13,644 15,013 749 1,369 8,037 8,341 10,884 304 2,543 Table 3.6: 2026 AM peak (0800 – 0900) trip ends for all vehicle types and all forecast scenarios
Issue No. 01 Page 24 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
4 FORECAST MATRICES
4.1 Do-Minimum Forecast
4.1.1 In order to assess the effects of the additional residential and commercial development provided by WBC in the forecast year of 2026, it is useful to have a reference case, which for this assessment is provided by the Do-Minimum scenario.
4.1.2 The 2026 Do-Minimum highway network includes the highway alteration of the Highways Agency’s Hindhead Improvement Scheme. The Hindhead Improvement Scheme is currently under construction but is planned to be open for traffic in mid 2011 (Highways Agency, 2009). The main outcome of the scheme will convert the current single carriageway section of the A3, between the Thursley Junction and Hammer Lane, to dual carriageway. Therefore the Hindhead Improvement Scheme has been incorporated into the 2026 network for the purpose of creating realistic future traffic flows and interactions. Highways Agency documents showing the locations of key highway alterations were used to incorporate the scheme in the modelled network. Therefore the only difference between the 2005 and 2026 network is the Hindhead Improvement Scheme.
4.1.3 The 2026 Do-Minimum trip matrix retains the Waverley Borough trips (internal, internal to external and external to internal trips) at 2005 base year levels, all other (external) trips grow at rates as forecast by the DfT’s TEMPRO database.
4.1.4 A comparison between the Do-Minimum and the 2005 base will therefore show the impact of growth in traffic from the “Rest of Britain,” while growth within the Borough will remain static at 2005 levels.
4.2 2026 Do-Something Forecasts
4.2.1 Forecast matrices for Scenario A and B were obtained following the procedure outlined in Figure 4.1. The Hindhead Improvement Scheme was incorporated in the network used for both scenarios.
Issue No. 01 Page 25 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
C 2026 Wav_Smoothed_NewA A B Previous matrix growthed to 2026_Do-Minimum 2026_Wav_Smoothed reflect increase in trips generated Raw distribution validated in Smooth all Waverley zones. by the Waverley developments terms of link flows. (Averages the trip length distribution in all zones). in Scenario A.
Growth Factor Method
D = C – B 2026 Wav_New DevelopmentsA Isolates trip ends generated by new development. Follows smoothed distribution.
E = A + D
2026 Forecast Scenario A 2026_Wav_Scenario A
Figure 4.1: Processes undertaken to create the forecast matrix for Scenario A
N.B. The same process was used to create Scenario B but using Scenario A as the starting point, instead of the Do- Minimum
4.2.2 The trip ends in the Waverley zones are smoothed in the 2026 Do-Minimum matrix to allow the new trip ends to follow a more representative distribution. A smoothed distribution refers to the origin and destination trip ends being averaged for a selected area (i.e. the Borough of Waverley).
4.2.3 The new trips derived from WBC’s planning data follows this smoothed distribution but has been added to the original raw distribution of the SINTRAM model. Raw distribution is lumpy but validates well in terms of link flows. Combining the two types of distribution enables a more robust forecast.
4.2.4 The 2005 base matrix travel demand total for the morning peak (0800 – 0900) is 1,773,113 trips. Table 4.1 shows the matrix totals and the absolute and percentage differences between the modelled 2026 future scenarios and the base year.
Issue No. 01 Page 26 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Borough Abs. Diff % Diff Matrix Abs. Diff % Diff Scenario Internal (Base) (Base) Total (Base) (Base) Trips 2005 Base 1,232 1,773,113 2026 Do-Minimum 1,129 -103 -8.4% 2,089,470 316,357 17.8% 2026 Scenario A 1,223 -9 -0.7% 2,089,666 316,553 17.9% 2026 Scenario B 1,684 452 36.7% 2,092,992 319,879 18.0% Table 4.1: AM Peak Aggregated Matrix Totals
4.2.5 Tables 4.2 and 4.5 show the aggregated Car, LGV and HGV matrices for each modelled scenario. The matrices have been further aggregated into 7 sectors covering geographic areas, for each borough or district in Surrey, neighbouring counties and London boroughs and other areas of the country.
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 1,232 357 4,064 37 2,059 4,637 22 12,406 East 700 18,984 6,583 15,221 7,736 2,288 11 51,523 Surrey West 2,797 5,868 23,399 9,026 1,996 16,331 36 59,451 Surrey London 110 15,003 4,814 300,803 13,929 22,081 13,284 370,024 Kent / 1,933 6,124 1,548 10,596 202,390 8,544 143 231,279 Sussex Home 971 1,203 12,954 21,432 8,703 342,908 42,673 430,845 Counties Rest of 5 54 337 13,148 826 43,720 559,494 617,585 Britain {All} 7,747 47,593 53,699 370,264 237,639 440,509 615,662 1,773,113 Table 4.2: 2005 Base Aggregated Matrix Totals (7 Sectors)
Note: Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 1,232 External to Borough Trips = 7,747 – 1,232 = 6,515 Borough to External Trips = 12,406 – 1,232 = 11,174 Total (All) = 1,773,113
Issue No. 01 Page 27 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 1,129 387 4,151 33 2,063 4,622 20 12,406 East 697 24,336 7,704 17,071 8,961 2,689 11 61,469 Surrey West 2,800 7,391 27,758 9,594 2,225 18,482 38 68,287 Surrey London 124 20,212 5,934 360,277 17,262 27,770 16,838 448,417 Kent / 1,946 8,092 1,900 11,902 238,722 9,878 135 272,576 Sussex Home 977 1,494 15,665 22,973 10,206 404,430 51,852 507,597 Counties Rest of 6 84 521 14,126 1,147 52,553 650,281 718,718 Britain {All} 7,679 61,996 63,633 435,976 280,588 520,425 719,175 2,089,470 Table 4.3: 2026 Do-Minimum Aggregated Matrix Totals (7 Sectors)
Note: Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 1,129 External to Borough Trips = 7,679 – 1,129 = 6,550 Borough to External Trips = 12,406 – 1,129 = 11,277 Total (All) = 2,089,470
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 1,223 413 4,386 36 2,177 4,891 22 13,148 East 719 24,340 7,709 17,054 8,966 2,690 11 61,489 Surrey West 2,885 7,386 27,766 9,587 2,225 18,484 38 68,370 Surrey London 129 20,226 5,938 359,472 17,286 27,797 16,837 447,685 Kent / 2,001 8,089 1,902 11,879 238,740 9,883 136 272,630 Sussex Home 1,003 1,492 15,667 22,967 10,202 404,433 51,862 507,626 Counties Rest of 6 83 521 14,126 1,141 52,547 650,294 718,718 Britain {All} 7,966 62,029 63,889 435,121 280,737 520,724 719,199 2,089,666 Table 4.4: 2026 Scenario A Aggregated Matrix Totals (7 Sectors)
Note: Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 1,223 External to Borough Trips = 7,966 – 1,223 = 6,743 Borough to External Trips = 13,148 – 1,223 = 11,925 Total (All) = 2,089,666
Issue No. 01 Page 28 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 1,684 444 4,682 41 2,324 5,267 23 14,466 East 934 24,338 7,720 17,047 8,963 2,685 11 61,697 Surrey West 3,730 7,381 27,810 9,583 2,229 18,477 38 69,248 Surrey London 176 20,230 5,943 359,463 17,287 27,793 16,836 447,728 Kent / 2,542 8,089 1,931 11,879 238,733 9,886 136 273,196 Sussex Home 1,281 1,493 15,695 22,965 10,206 404,435 51,859 507,935 Counties Rest of 11 83 524 14,127 1,141 52,548 650,289 718,723 Britain {All} 10,358 62,059 64,304 435,104 280,884 521,092 719,192 2,092,992 Table 4.5: 2026 Scenario B Aggregated Matrix Totals (7 Sectors)
Note: Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 1,684 External to Borough Trips = 10,358 – 1,684 = 8,674 Borough to External Trips = 14,466 – 1,684 = 12,782 Total (All) = 2,092,992
4.3 Trunk Road Select Link Matrices
4.3.1 The impact of the new housing and commercial developments on the trunk road network was investigated by undertaking “select link” analyses of the trunk road network links of interest. The analysis uses the SINTRAM model to reveal origins and destinations of all traffic using a particular link or selection of links. These results have been tabulated below in terms of summary tables (matrices) showing those movements from and to WBC to neighbouring geographical regions.
4.3.2 The analysis was conducted on two roads within the Borough of Waverley: the A3 and the A31. Even though the A31 is not a trunk road it is a key road within Waverley, and bordering Waverley, that carries a large volume of traffic (see Figures 5.1 to 5.4). A select link analysis was performed twice for each road, once at each boundary of the borough. Therefore the select link analyses of the A3 were performed north of the Milford Junction (northern borough boundary) and south of the Hindhead Junction (southern borough boundary). The locations of the select link analyses of the A31 were west of the Coxbridge Roundabout (western borough boundary) and east of the A331 Blackwater Valley Junction (eastern borough boundary).
4.3.3 Tables 4.6 to 4.21 show the aggregated Car, LGV and HGV matrices for traffic using the local trunk network for all future scenarios as well as the base year. The matrices have been further aggregated into Waverley sectors and neighbouring geographical regions. All results are for the morning AM peak hour.
4.3.4 The A3 at the northern borough boundary and the A31 at the eastern borough boundary are the links that have the largest amount of trips, originating from and destined to the Borough of Waverley in the AM peak hour (see Tables 4.6 to 4.9).
Issue No. 01 Page 29 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
A31 East Select Link
A31 West Select Link A3 Northbound Select Link
A3 Southbound Select Link
N
Figure 4.2: Locations of Trunk Road Select Link Analyses
Issue No. 01 Page 30 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
A3 - Northern Borough Boundary Select Link Analysis
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 279 82 356 8 189 253 0 1,166 East 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Surrey West 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 Surrey London 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Kent / 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 Sussex Home 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 745 82 356 8 189 253 0 1,633 Table 4.6: 2005 Base, select link analysis of A3 (northern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 279 External to Borough Trips = 745 – 279 = 466 Borough to External Trips = 1,166– 279 = 887 Total (All) = 1,633
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 230 85 375 6 189 249 0 1,134 East 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Surrey West 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 Surrey London 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Kent / 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 Sussex Home 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 Counties Rest of 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Britain {All} 747 85 375 6 189 249 0 1,651 Table 4.7: 2026 Do-Minimum, select link analysis of A3 (northern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 230 External to Borough Trips = 747 – 230 = 517 Borough to External Trips = 1,134– 230 = 904 Total (All) = 1,651
Issue No. 01 Page 31 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 250 89 418 6 198 278 0 1,240 East 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Surrey West 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 Surrey London 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Kent / 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 Sussex Home 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 Counties Rest of 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Britain {All} 815 89 418 6 198 278 0 1,805 Table 4.8: 2026 Scenario A, select link analysis of A3 (northern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 250 External to Borough Trips = 815 – 250 = 565 Borough to External Trips = 1,240 – 250 = 990 Total (All) = 1,805
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 332 96 446 7 217 308 1 1,406 East 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 Surrey West 321 0 0 0 0 0 0 321 Surrey London 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Kent / 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 Sussex Home 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 Counties Rest of 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Britain {All} 1,188 96 446 7 217 308 1 2,262 Table 4.9: 2026 Scenario B, select link analysis of A3 (northern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 332 External to Borough Trips = 1,188 – 332 = 856 Borough to External Trips = 1,406– 332 = 1,074 Total (All) = 2,262
4.3.5 Tables 4.6 to 4.9 display the select link analyses of the A3 at the northern borough boundary. The matrices show the amount of trips originating from and destined to Waverley using this link for all forecast scenarios. There is a general progression (increases) in the number of trips associated with Waverley using the A3 at this location between the 2005 Base and 2026 Scenario B forecast.
Issue No. 01 Page 32 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
4.3.6 The 2005 Base matrix shows that 1,633 trips to and from Waverley use the northern part of the A3 for some part of their journey in the AM peak hour. In Scenario A and B this rises to 1,805 and 2,262 respectively (Tables 4.8 to 4.9).
A3 - Southern Borough Boundary Select Link Analysis
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 0 0 0 0 36 295 2 333 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Sussex Home 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 186 0 0 0 36 295 2 518 Table 4.10: 2005 Base, select link analysis of A3 (southern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 0 External to Borough Trips = 186 – 0 = 186 Borough to External Trips = 333 – 0 = 333 Total (All) = 518
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 0 0 0 0 30 473 4 506 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Sussex Home 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 187 0 0 0 30 473 4 694 Table 4.11: 2026 Do-Minimum, select link analysis of A3 (southern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 0 External to Borough Trips = 187 – 0 = 187 Borough to External Trips = 506– 0 = 506 Total (All) = 694
Issue No. 01 Page 33 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 0 0 0 0 32 523 4 559 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Sussex Home 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 188 0 0 0 32 523 4 747 Table 4.12: 2026 Scenario A, select link analysis of A3 (southern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 0 External to Borough Trips = 188 – 0 = 188 Borough to External Trips = 559 – 0 = 559 Total (All) = 747
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 0 0 0 0 34 574 5 613 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Sussex Home 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 251 0 0 0 34 574 5 864 Table 4.13: 2026 Scenario B, select link analysis of A3 (southern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 0 External to Borough Trips = 251 – 0 = 251 Borough to External Trips = 613 – 0 = 613 Total (All) = 864
4.3.7 Tables 4.10 to 4.13 display the select link analyses of the A3 at the southern borough boundary. The matrices show the amount of trips originating from and destined to Waverley using the A3 south of Hindhead. There is a general progression (increases) in the amount of trips associated with Waverley using this part of the A3 between the 2005 Base (518 trips) and 2026 Scenario B (864 trips).
4.3.8 There are no in intra borough trips in any of the forecast matrices. This is as expected as its highly unlikely for the this link to be used with the aim of leaving and re-entering the borough due to its location at the south borough boundary.
Issue No. 01 Page 34 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
A31 - Eastern Borough Boundary Select Link Analysis
Table 4.14: 2005 Base, select link analysis of A31 (eastern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 45 External to Borough Trips = 776 – 45 = 731 Borough to External Trips = 829 – 45 = 784 East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 45 32 609 0 35 107 0 829 East 342 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 Surrey West 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 311 Surrey London 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Kent / 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 Sussex Home 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 776 32 609 0 35 107 0 1,560 Total (All) = 1,560
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 56 37 671 6 28 160 0 958 East 314 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 Surrey West 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 Surrey London 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Kent / 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 Sussex Home 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Counties Rest of 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Britain {All} 837 37 671 6 28 160 0 1,738 Table 4.15: 2026 Do-Minimum, select link analysis of A31 (eastern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 56 External to Borough Trips = 837 – 56 = 781 Borough to External Trips = 958– 56 = 902 Total (All) = 1,738
Issue No. 01 Page 35 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 63 41 719 6 31 175 0 1,035 East 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 Surrey West 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 374 Surrey London 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Kent / 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 Sussex Home 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Counties Rest of 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Britain {All} 873 41 719 6 31 175 0 1,845 Table 4.16: 2026 Scenario A, select link analysis of A31 (eastern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 63 External to Borough Trips = 873 – 63 = 810 Borough to External Trips = 1,035 – 63 = 972 Total (All) = 1,845
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 99 48 796 6 38 209 0 1,196 East 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 Surrey West 547 0 0 0 0 0 0 547 Surrey London 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Kent / 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Sussex Home 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Counties Rest of 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Britain {All} 1,171 48 796 6 38 209 0 2,267 Table 4.17: 2026 Scenario B, select link analysis of A31 (eastern borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 99 External to Borough Trips = 1,171 – 99 = 1,072 Borough to External Trips = 1,196 – 99 = 1,097 Total (All) = 2,267
4.3.9 Tables 4.14 to 4.17 display the select link analyses of the A31 at the eastern borough boundary. A large amount of flow is carried on this link, similar to the A3 at the northern borough boundary. All forecast matrices from the 2005 Base to 2026 Scenario B experience increases in the number of trips using this specific link.
4.3.10 The 2026 Do-Minimum matrix shows that 1,738 trips to and from Waverley use this part of the A31 for some of their journey in the AM peak hour. In 2026
Issue No. 01 Page 36 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scenarios A and B this rises to 1,845 and 2,267 respectively. Therefore the difference between 2026 Scenario A and B is 422 trips.
A31 - Western Borough Boundary Select Link Analysis
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 5 0 9 0 32 703 9 758 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sussex Home 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 140 0 9 0 32 703 9 893 Table 4.18: 2005 Base, select link analysis of A31 (western borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 5 External to Borough Trips = 140 – 5 = 135 Borough to External Trips = 758 – 5 = 753 Total (All) = 893
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 5 0 10 0 17 715 8 753 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sussex Home 134 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 144 0 10 0 17 715 8 892 Table 4.19: 2026 Do-Minimum, select link analysis of A31 (western borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 5 External to Borough Trips = 144 – 5 = 139 Borough to External Trips = 753– 5 = 748 Total (All) = 892
Issue No. 01 Page 37 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 5 0 10 0 17 749 8 789 East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surrey West 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sussex Home 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 151 0 10 0 17 749 8 935 Table 4.20: 2026 Scenario A, select link analysis of A31 (western borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 5 External to Borough Trips = 151 – 5 = 146 Borough to External Trips = 789 – 5 = 784 Total (All) = 935
East West Kent / Home Rest of Waverley London {All} Surrey Surrey Sussex Counties Britain Waverley 6 0 11 0 21 815 9 862 East 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Surrey West 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Surrey London 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kent / 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Sussex Home 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 Counties Rest of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Britain {All} 202 0 11 0 21 815 9 1,059 Table 4.21: 2026 Scenario B, select link analysis of A31 (western borough boundary)
Waverley Intra Borough AM Trips = 6 External to Borough Trips = 202 – 5 = 197 Borough to External Trips = 862 – 6 = 857 Total (All) = 1,059
4.3.11 Tables 4.18 to 4.21 show that the A31 at the western borough boundary accommodates a smaller amount of trips in all scenarios when compared to the select link analysis of the A31 at the eastern borough boundary. 2026 Scenario B is the forecast scenario that contains the largest amount of trips using this link for part of their journey in the AM peak hour, 1,059 trips.
Issue No. 01 Page 38 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5 MODELLING RESULTS AD ANALYSES
5.1 Summary Statistics
5.1.1 Table 5.1 presents matrix based trip statistics for the Borough of Waverley.
AM Vehicle Trips 2005 Base 2026 Do-Minimum 2026 Scenario A 2026 Scenario B Waverley Intra Borough Trips 1,232 1,129 1,223 1,684 External to Borough Trips 6,515 6,550 6,743 8,674 Borough to External Trips 11,174 11,277 11,925 12,782 Table 5.1: Summary Trip Matrix AM Peak
5.1.2 Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present the network based summary statistics for the Borough of Waverley. It compares the key outputs from the modelling of the base situation 2005, the 2026 Do-Minimum, and the forecast Scenarios A and B. These network based results report trunk road and non-trunk road statistics separately. The tables include both link and (for non-trunk road) junction based statistics.
Issue No. 01 Page 39 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
2026 Key Statistics 2005 Scenario A (Do- Scenario B Do-Minimum Min as reference (Scenario A as case) reference case) Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 301,429 319,685 329,831 366,232 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 6,045 6,493 6,731 7,611 Total Junction Delay (Veh Hrs) 903 779 860 1,020 Total Network Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 6,948 7,272 7,591 8,631 Average Speed (Km/hr) 56.4 55.8 55.5 54.4 Difference Between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 10,146 46,547 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 238 1,118 Total Junction Delay (Veh Hrs) 81 241 Total Network Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 319 1,360 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.3 -1.4 Percentage Difference Between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 3.2% 14.6% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 3.7% 17.2% Total Junction Delay (Veh Hrs) 10.4% 31.0% Total Network Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 4.4% 18.7% Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.6% -2.6% Difference Between Scenarios A and B Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 36,401 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 880 Total Junction Delay (Veh Hrs) 160 Total Network Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 1,040 Average Speed (Km/hr) -1.1 Percentage Difference Between Scenarios A and B Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 11.0% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 13.1% Total Junction Delay (Veh Hrs) 18.7% Total Network Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 13.7% Average Speed (Km/hr) -2.0% Table 5.2: Non Trunk Road Summary Statistics
5.1.3 Table 5.3 presents the trunk road based summary statistics for the Borough of Waverley for 2026. It compares key outputs from the base (2005), the 2026 Do- Minimum and the 2026 forecast Scenarios A and B. The table includes trunk road slip roads and refers only to the A3, as this is the only trunk road in the Borough. It is important to note that the 2026 statistics include the Highways Agency Hindhead Improvement Scheme.
Issue No. 01 Page 40 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
2026 Key Statistics 2005 Scenario A (Do- Scenario B Do-Minimum Min as reference (Scenario A as case) reference case) Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 23,189 33,678 34,999 38,147 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 268 367 382 419 Average Speed (Km/hr) 83.4 87.3 87.0 86.4 Difference Between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 1,321 4,469 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 15 52 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.3 -0.9 Percentage Difference Between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 3.9% 13.3% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 4.2% 14.1% Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.3% -1.0% Difference Between Scenarios A and B Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 3,148 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 36 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.6 Percentage Difference Between Scenarios A and B Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 9.0% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 9.5% Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.7% Table 5.3: Trunk Road Summary Statistics
5.1.4 It must be noted that any increase in delay in the future is not just due to growth within Waverley but also attributed to traffic growth across Great Britain. This is shown from the comparison between the Do-Minimum and the 2005 base results.
5.1.5 The A3 between the Milford Junction and the Hindhead Junction passes through the middle of Waverley. All 2026 statistics for the non trunk road and trunk road statistics are based on a network that includes the Highways Agency Hindhead Improvement Scheme. Therefore, when comparing results between the 2005 base and 2026 scenarios this is an important effect to take into account.
5.1.6 The model suggests the following for the forecast year of 2026:
5.1.7 An increase in non trunk road vehicle kilometres travelled in Waverley of approximately 10,100vkm in 2026 Scenario A compared to the Do-Minimum and 36,400vkm in 2026 Scenario B compared with Scenario A. This results in an approximate 10.4% (Scenario A compared to the Do-Minimum) and 18.7% (Scenario B compared to Scenario A) increase in total junction delay and a decrease in average speed of 0.6% and 2% respectively.
5.1.8 At a borough level, the summary statistics show that there is a relative amount of difference between Scenarios A and B in the 2026 forecasts. Scenario B presents higher impacts.
5.1.9 Table 5.2 shows a decrease in junction delay between the 2005 Base and 2026 Do- Minimum. Junction Delay for the whole of Waverley in 2005 is 903 Veh Hrs and
Issue No. 01 Page 41 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
779 Veh Hrs in 2026 Do-Minimum; a reduction of 124 Veh Hrs. The majority of this reduction in junction delay can be attributed to the Hindhead Improvement Scheme and one junction in particular, the Hindhead Crossroads. In the 2005 network this junction is modelled as signals but in the 2026 network it becomes a roundabout. For more detail refer to Table 5.9.
5.1.10 Considering traffic flow along the trunk road network, the model shows that total vehicle kilometres travelled is predicted to increase by approximately 1,300vkm in 2026 Scenario A compared to the Do-Minimum. Whereas Scenario B shows an approximate estimated increase of 3,100vkm compared to Scenario A.
5.1.11 Comparing the trunk road network between Scenarios A and B in 2026, Scenario B has greater flow and travel time than Scenario A. However, this difference is of a minimal amount. For example, the difference between total vehicle kilometrage is 9% and a decrease in average speed of 0.7%.
5.1.12 Table 5.3 shows that the average speed for trunk links in 2005 is much lower than all 2026 future scenarios. This can be explained by the Hindhead Improvement Scheme being present in the 2026 network but not in the 2005 network. By converting a section of the A3 from single to dual carriageway and removing the bottleneck caused by the Hindhead signals, an increase in free-flowing conditions is apparent. Thus allowing an increase in average speed for trunk roads as a whole in the borough.
5.2 Largest Increases in Additional Trips
5.2.1 Using the source data as shown previously in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 the zones which experience the highest increases in additional departure (origin) trips, for all vehicle types are shown in Table 5.4 and 5.5.
Additional Percentage of Zone No. Zone Name Trips Additional Trips 331 Wrecclesham 67.2 9.3% 328 Haslemere 64.7 9.0% 329 Hindhead 62.1 8.6% 327 Haslemere - Shottermill 41.6 5.8% 333 Cranleigh East 39.3 5.5% Table 5.4: Zones with the greatest increase in additional departure (origin) trips, 2026 Scenario A
Additional Percentage of Zone No. Zone Name Trips Additional Trips 127 Farnham Town Centre 123.4 12.8% 327 Haslemere - Shottermill 50.1 5.2% 300 Farnham - Weydon Ln & Shortheath 49.2 5.1% 336 Farnham - Weybourne West 47.8 5.0% 340 Farncombe 45.6 4.7% Table 5.5 Zones with the greatest increase in additional departure (origin) trips, 2026 Scenario B
5.2.2 Within Waverley, the largest amount of additional departure trips generated by the proposed developments are within zones that cover part of the boroughs four main urban settlements: Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Haslemere.
Issue No. 01 Page 42 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.2.3 In Scenario A it can be seen that the largest increase in trips is covered in three of these four urban areas: Farnham (Wrecclesham), Haslemere/Hindhead and Cranleigh. This is also the case for Scenario B, but the three out of the four areas differ to be, Farnham, Haslemere and Godalming (Farncombe).
5.2.4 Scenario B generates the largest amount and proportion of additional departure trips in these areas of the borough when compared to Scenario A. The area with the largest amount of additional development in terms of departures (origins) trips is Farnham.
5.2.5 Using the source data as shown previously in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 the zones that experience the largest amount of additional arrival (destination) trips, for all vehicle types, is shown below in Tables 5.6 and 5.7
Additional Percentage of Zone No. Zone Name Trips Additional Trips 328 Haslemere 28.3 13.0% 331 Wrecclesham 16.7 7.7% 329 Hindhead 16.6 7.6% 333 Cranleigh East 14.2 6.5% 327 Haslemere - Shottermill 10.9 5.0% Table 5.6: Zones with the greatest increase in additional arrival (destination) trips, 2026 Scenario A
Additional Percentage of Zone No. Zone Name Trips Additional Trips 327 Haslemere - Shottermill 162.8 6.9% 339 Godalming - Charterhouse 161.9 6.9% 340 Farncombe 154.3 6.5% 337 Godalming - Busbridge 151.6 6.4% 333 Cranleigh East 127.5 5.4% Table 5.7: Zones with the greatest increase in additional arrival (destination) trips, 2026 Scenario B
5.2.6 The additional arrival trips follow a similar pattern to the additional departure trips. The largest amounts of additional arrival trips generated by the proposed developments are within zones that cover part of the four main urban settlements in the borough.
5.2.7 In Scenario A it can be seen that the largest increase in arrival trips is in three of the four main urban settlements: Farnham (Wrecclesham), Haslemere and Cranleigh. This is also the case for Scenario B, although the three out of four areas differ to be Godalming, Cranleigh and Haslemere.
5.2.8 Comparison of Tables 5.4 to 5.7 clearly shows that Scenario B has a greater amount of additional trips (both departures and arrivals) generated by the proposed developments than Scenario A. The area that contains the largest amount of additional arrival (destination) trips is Haslemere (zones 327 and 328).
Issue No. 01 Page 43 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.3 Traffic Impacts
5.3.1 Table 5.8 lists the roads within Waverley that experience the greatest increase in traffic delay during the AM peak hour in 2026 compared with each scenarios reference case. The links that experience the greatest amount of changes in flow are within the town of Farnham. These areas correlate with information shown in Tables 5.4 to 5.7, as receiving largest proportions of additional trips from the proposed developments. The general trend displayed is that flow will increase on all stated links between the 2005 Base and 2026 Scenario B.
5.3.2 While the smaller (local) roads have not been modelled, it should be remembered that only inter-zonal trips (trips made between zones) are actually modelled and therefore the detail of the road network has to be balanced against the size of the zone system to obtain a realistic result.
Issue No. 01 Page 44 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Flow – All Vehicles (Absolute Values) Absolute Differences* Scenario Link Nominal 2026 2026 2026 Do- Scenario Direction Description Location 2026 Do- B - No. Capacity 2005 Scenario Scenario Min - A - Do- Min Scenario A B 2005 Min A 280 32 352 11783 2 (W) A31 Hogs Back Farnham 3,500 1,031 1,311 1,343 1,695 (27%) (2%) (26%) 574 8 297 11143 2 (S) C19 St. Georges Road Farnham 1,200 1,252 1,826 1,834 2,131 (46%) (0%) (16%) 244 51 291 8392 2 (N) A287 Folly Hill Farnham 1,200 1,899 2,143 2,194 2,485 (13%) (2%) (13%) 194 39 277 8401 2 (N) A287 Castle Hill Farnham 800 1,382 1,576 1,615 1,892 (14%) (2%) (17%) 194 39 277 10598 2 (N) Castle Street Farnham 800 1,382 1,576 1,615 1,892 (14%) (2%) (17%) 201 40 277 8398 2 (N) A287 Folly Hill Farnham 1,200 1,436 1,637 1,677 1,954 (14%) (2%) (17%) 419 1 253 8378 2 (W) Guildford Road Farnham 1,200 610 1,029 1,030 1,283 (69%) (0%) (25%) -158 66 226 15889 2 (E) C23 Hurtmore Road Farncombe 1,200 758 600 665 891 (-21%) (11%) (34%) -71 33 221 8510 2 (W) C29 Thursley Road Thursley 1,700 446 375 409 630 (-16%) (9%) (54%) 284 5 211 11772 1 (S) C121 St. Georges Road Farnham 1,200 968 1,253 1,258 1,469 (29%) (0%) (17%) Table 5.8: Links that display the largest increase in flow resulting from scenarios when compared with their relevant reference cases.
Nominal capacity is the flow at which queuing is likely to start at.
* The values shown in brackets are the percentage differences
Issue No. 01 Page 45 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Junction Delay Veh Hrs (Absolute Values) Absolute Difference Veh Hrs* 2026 2026 Node Junction 2026 2026 2026 Do- Scenario Description Location 2026 Do- Scenario No. Type 2005 Scenario Scenario Min - B - 2026 Min A - 2026 A B 2005 Scenario Do-Min A A287 Tilford Rd, A3 London Rd, A287 Signal / -164.6 20.2 42.2 40977 Hindhead 204.8 40.2 60.4 102.5 Hindhead Rd Roundabout (-80%) (50%) (70%) -3.2 5.6 41.2 45391 A31 Farnham Bypass, Shepherd & Flock Signal Farnham 22.7 19.5 25.2 66.4 (-14%) (29%) (164%) 18.5 18.8 40.7 40910 A283 Guildford Rd, A3001 Portsmouth Rd Signal Milford 14.4 32.9 51.6 92.4 (128%) (57%) (79%) A287 Firgrove Hill, B3384 Echo Barn Ln, -11.6 12.9 25.9 99024 Signal Farnham 19.8 8.2 21.1 47.0 A287 Frensham Rd, Great Austins (-59%) (158%) (122%) A3100 Ockford Rd, A3100 Flambard Way, 16.0 4.2 21.7 99603 Signal Godalming 92.3 108.3 112.6 134.2 B2130 Brighton Rd (17%) (4%) (19%) A31 Farnham Bypass, A287 South St, B3001 -1.2 9.0 12.5 40870 Signal Farnham 312.5 311.3 320.3 332.8 Station Hill (Hickleys Corner) (0%) (3%) (4%) -4.9 0.4 5.5 45543 A325 Guildford Rd, Shepherd & Flock Priority Farnham 30.0 25.2 25.6 31.1 (-16%) (2%) (22%) -0.2 1.2 3.2 43124 A31 Hogs Back, Guildford Rd Priority Farnham 31.0 30.8 32.0 35.2 (-1%) (4%) (10%) 19.4 4.2 3.0 45392 A325 Hale Rd, Shepherd & Flock Priority Farnham 27.6 47.0 51.2 54.1 (70%) (9%) (6%) -0.3 -0.4 2.7 45669 Station Approach Rd, B3001 Station Hill Priority Farnham 4.2 3.9 3.5 6.2 (-7%) (-10%) (76%) Table 5.9: Junctions that display the largest increase in junction delay between Scenario A and Scenario B.
*The values shown in brackets are the percentage differences.
N.B. Two different junction types are given for Node 40997. This is because this junction was included in the Hindhead Improvement Scheme. In the 2005 network the junction is signalised and in the 2026 network the junction changes to a roundabout.
Issue No. 01 Page 46 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.3.3 It should be noted that junction modelling represented in a strategic model produces outputs that are approximate projections, like other outputs. This is due to the level of detail that can be included and represented in a strategic model, and can therefore inhibit some accuracy of the modelled junction’s outputs. It is important to note that junction delay increases exponentially, thus referring to how junction delay can increase considerably once passing a certain threshold. For instance flow breakdown and queuing can cause junction delay to increase rapidly for a single junction, and can also have continued effects of junction delay at other nearby junctions.
5.3.4 Table 5.9 highlights the locations of junctions that are likely to be impacted by additional increases in traffic flow and hence junction delay. Due to the strategic nature of the modelling process, the values of junction delay shown in Table 5.9 should only be used as guide rather than actual values.
5.3.5 Table 5.9 displays the largest increases in junction delay between Scenario A and Scenario B. However, values for the base and 2026 Do-Minimum are also shown. The trend displayed for changes in junction delay relates to the trend shown in Table 5.8 for flow. The majority of links that experience the largest increase in flow are in Farnham and this is also the case for junction delay.
5.3.6 Table 5.9 indicates that clusters of junctions that are in close proximity all experience the effects of junction delay increases, in a progressive state. The greatest example of this is junctions within the area of Farnham i.e. a number of junctions on the A31 corridor appear in Table 5.9. The main corridor is from the A31 Guildford Road junction to the Shepherd & Flock Roundabout and finally Hickleys Corner. This would suggest that the main area of increased flow and junction delay is along the A31 corridor in Waverley, instead of at one isolated junction or link.
5.3.7 Table 5.9 displays a large reduction (80%) in junction delay between the 2026 Do- Minimum (40.2 Veh Hrs of junction delay) and 2005 Base (204.8 Veh Hrs of junction delay) at the junction of the A3 Portsmouth Road, A287 Tilford Road and A287 Hindhead Road. It should be noted that this junction is involved within the Hindhead Improvement Scheme and the junction is intended to be converted from signals to a roundabout, and has been modelled as such. This impact relates to Table 5.2 and can be associated as the junction contributing most to a total decrease in junction delay for the borough. An explanation for the large decrease between the 2026 Do-Minimum and the 2005 Base is that the dualling of the A3 and re- distribution effects of the traffic flow, will ease the junction delay significantly at this location coinciding with one of the main aims of the Hindhead Improvement Scheme.
5.3.8 Not only does the Hindhead Improvement Scheme have impacts at the local area of Hindhead, it is also projected to attract more traffic on the section of the A3 in Waverley as the result of reduced travel costs (comparison of Figures 5.1 and 5.2 display this). This projected increase in flow on the A3 therefore has implications for increased flow on upstream and downstream junctions. An example of this is the junction of the A283 Guildford Road and A3001 Portsmouth Road (node
Issue No. 01 Page 47 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
40910) in Milford which experiences steady increases in junction delay between the 2026 Do-Minimum and Scenario B.
5.3.9 The locations of junctions shown in Table 5.9 also correlates with the locations and zones that have the largest amount of additional trips, namely Farnham and Godalming, shown in Tables 5.4 to 5.7.
5.4 Borough Bandwidth Plots
5.4.1 Both the volume of traffic and the level of congestion prevalent in the base year and subsequent forecast years can be visualised using a coloured bandwidth plot on the road network. These are shown for the entire Borough of Waverley in Figures 5.1 to 5.4.
5.4.2 The width of the band is proportionate to the flow. The browner the green colour, the closer the link is to a VCR (volume/capacity ratio) of 0.85, when the colour of the link changes to pale orange/brown.
Issue No. 01 Page 48 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scale 3000vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Figure 5.1: 2005 Traffic Volumes for the Borough of Waverley
Scale 3000vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Figure 5.2: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes for the Borough of Waverley
Issue No. 01 Page 49 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scale 3000vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Figure 5.3: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes for the Borough of Waverley
Scale 3000vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Figure 5.4: 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes for the Borough of Waverley
Issue No. 01 Page 50 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.3 Figures 5.5 to 5.8 show the bandwidth plots of the volume capacity ratio focused in the area of Farnham for the base and forecast scenarios.
Figure 5.5: 2005 Traffic Volumes – Farnham Figure 5.6: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes - Farnham
Figure 5.7: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes – Farnham Figure 5.8: 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes - Farnham
Scale 550vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Issue No. 01 Page 51 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.4 Figures 5.9 to 5.12 show the bandwidth plots of the volume/capacity ratio focused in the area of Wrecclesham for the base and forecast scenarios.
Figure 5.9: 2005 Traffic Volumes – Wrecclesham Figure 5.10: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes - Wrecclesham
Figure 5.11: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes – Wrecclesham Figure 5.12: 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes - Wrecclesham
Scale 450vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Issue No. 01 Page 52 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.5 Figures 5.13 to 5.16 show the bandwidth plots of the volume capacity ratio focused in the area of Godalming for the base and forecast scenarios.
Figure 5.13: 2005 Traffic Volumes – Godalming Figure 5.14: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes - Godalming
Figure 5.15: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes – Godalming Figure 5.16: 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes - Godalming
Scale 600vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1
VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Issue No. 01 Page 53 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.6 Figures 5.17 to 5.20 show the bandwidth plots of the volume capacity ratio focused in the area of Haslemere for the base and forecast scenarios.
Figure 5.17: 2005 Traffic Volumes – Haslemere Figure 5.18: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes - Haslemere
Figure 5.19: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes – Haslemere Figure 5.20 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes – Haslemere
Scale 500vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Issue No. 01 Page 54 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.7 Figures 5.21 to 5.24 show the bandwidth plots of the volume capacity ratio focused in the area of Cranleigh for the base and forecast scenarios.
Figure 5.21: 2005 Traffic Volumes – Cranleigh Figure 5.22: 2026 Do-Minimum Traffic Volumes - Cranleigh
Figure 5.23: 2026 Scenario A Traffic Volumes – Cranleigh Figure 5.24: 2026 Scenario B Traffic Volumes - Cranleigh
Scale 900vph
Key VCR 0 – 0.85 VCR 0.85 – 1 VCR 1 – 2 VCR >2
Issue No. 01 Page 55 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
5.4.8 Changes in the levels of traffic are shown using a bandwidth plot on the road network with comparison to the relevant reference cases. Figures 5.25 to 5.27 show the differences in traffic flow between the 2005 base year and the 2026 Do- Minimum, 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A and finally the 2026 Scenario A and Scenario B. By comparing each scenario with their relevant reference case it is possible to visualise the increase/decrease in traffic flows on individual links at a borough scale. Where links are coloured blue, this indicates an increase in flow whereas links coloured yellow represent a decrease in traffic flow between the two scenarios in question.
5.4.9 The differences between the two test scenarios are very small and would not cause any significant impacts on the road network. The scale is greatly exaggerated for visual purposes.
5.4.10 For reference, Figures 5.25 to 5.27 show the disposition of allocated growth by development type (commercial and residential) represented by the pie charts. These plots are very similar to those produced in Figures 3.1 to 3.4, although the plots shown below represent all trips (origins and destinations summed). The allocated growth for commercial is shown in red and residential in grey.
5.4.11 Figures 5.25 to 5.27 indicate that all 2026 forecast scenarios experience a general increase in traffic flows. Figure 5.25 shows that the largest increases and decrease in traffic flow is on the A3, surrounding Hindhead. Such changes in flow can be attributed to the Hindhead Improvement Scheme reducing traffic congestion on the former single carriageway section, encouraging traffic to shift from local county roads to the strategic road network (shown by links in the Hindhead area displaying a yellow link colour).
5.4.12 Figures 5.25 to 5.27 indicate that the links expected to incur the largest increase in traffic flows are the A3 and the A31, mainly in the 2026 Do-Minimum and Scenario B forecasts. These links are arguably the two links that carry the largest amount of long distance travel within, and through the borough of Waverley. The A31 runs east to west and the A3 north to south. The Hindhead Improvement Scheme will cause more trips to use the southern section of the A3 in the future, as the delay experienced at the former Hindhead crossroads should be significantly decreased (see Table 5.9), making travel along the Waverley section of the A3 more cost effective.
Issue No. 01 Page 56 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min
Scale 700vph Figure 5.25: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus the 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A
Scale 700vph Figure 5.26: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 57 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B
Scale 700vph Figure 5.27: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
5.4.13 Enlarged plots showing the difference in flow for the key settlement areas within the borough of Waverley are shown below in Figures 5.28 to 5.42. These plots are exactly the same as Figures 5.25 to 5.27 but at a localised scale.
Issue No. 01 Page 58 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Farnham – Difference in Flow Plots
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min
Scale 100vph
Figure 5.28: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A
Scale 100vph Figure 5.29: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 59 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B
Scale 100vph
Figure 5.30: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 60 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Wrecclesham – Difference in Flow Plots
Scale 100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min
Figure 5.31: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Scale 100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A Figure 5.32: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 61 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scale 100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B
Figure 5.33: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 62 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Godalming – Difference in Flow Plots
Scale
100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min
Figure 5.34: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Scale
100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A Figure 5.35: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 63 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scale 100vph
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B
Figure 5.36: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 64 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Haslemere – Difference in Flow Plots
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Scale Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min 80vph
Figure 5.37: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Scale Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A 80vph Figure 5.38: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 65 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Scale Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B 80vph
Figure 5.39: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 66 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Cranleigh – Difference in Flow Plots
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Do-Min Decrease in flow for 2026 Do-Min
Scale 150vph
Figure 5.40: 2026 Do-Minimum Flow minus 2005 Base Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2005 Base and 2026 Do-Minimum being displayed)
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen A Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen A
Scale 150vph Figure 5.41: 2026 Scenario A Flow minus 2026 Do-Minimum Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Do-Minimum and 2026 Scenario A being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 67 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Key
Increase in flow for 2026 Scen B Decrease in flow for 2026 Scen B
Scale 150vph
Figure 5.42: 2026 Scenario B Flow minus 2026 Scenario A Flow (results in the increases/decreases in flow between 2026 Scenario A and 2026 Scenario B being displayed)
Issue No. 01 Page 68 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
6 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS (AQMA)
6.1 Overview of Areas
6.1.1 WBC requested SCC to specifically assess the potential impacts that the proposed commercial and residential developments could have on AQMA sites in the Borough.
6.1.2 WBC informed SCC that the Borough of Waverley has three identified AQMA sites. These are:
• Farnham: A325 The Borough, A287 Castle Street, A287 Downing Street, Upper Church Lane, A325 West Street, A287 Long Bridge, A287 Union Road, Victoria Road, A287 South Street, Brightwells Road, A325 East Street, A325 Woolmead Road, Bear Lane.
• Godalming: A3100 Ockford Road and A3100 Flambard Way.
• Hindhead: A287 Tilford Road, A3 London Road, A287 Hindhead Road, A3 Portsmouth Road (Hindhead Crossroads).
6.1.3 The site locations of all AQMA’s are shown in Appendices E to G.
6.2 AQMA Summary Statistics
6.2.1 Summary statistics have been produced for each of the AQMA sites in Tables 6.1 to 6.3. The statistics have been produced for each direction of a link (i.e. northbound and southbound). However, for the Farnham and Hindhead AQMA sites, the statistics have been separated by an inbound and outbound direction.
6.2.2 The Farnham AQMA statistics are presented for inbound and outbound directions of the town centre. The one-way system in Farnham (A325 The Borough, A287 South Street, A287 Union Road and A287 Downing Street) was included within the inbound direction.
6.2.3 The Hindhead statistics are also presented in an inbound and outbound direction, in relation to the direction of travel to the centre of the Hindhead crossroads. Hence inbound flows equal outbound flows but are different when comparing scenarios.
6.2.4 Due to the nature of a strategic traffic model not all links within the Farnham AQMA are modelled with SINTRAM. This refers to minor roads such as Victoria Road and Upper Church Lane. As many links as possible within the Farnham AQMA were included in the AQMA summary statistics.
6.2.5 In summary it can be seen that 2026 Scenario B presents the largest impacts on the local traffic for all three AQMA sites in Waverley.
6.2.6 In Tables 6.1 to 6.3 the 2026 Do-Minimum was used as a reference case for Scenario A and Scenario A was used as a reference case for Scenario B.
Issue No. 01 Page 69 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Farnham AQMA Site
Inbound Outbound Key Statistics 2026 2026 2005 2005 Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 11,288 11,878 12,045 12,523 5,715 5,560 5,663 5,740 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 6.6% 6.8% 6.7% 7.0% 6.2% 6.2% 6.0% 6.4% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 2,927 3,144 3,175 3,321 2,172 2,270 2,310 2,446 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 165 184 187 199 112 129 132 146 Average Speed (Km/hr) 21.0 21.1 21.1 21.0 23.7 24.0 23.8 23.9 Total Link Length (Km) 3.0 2.5 Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) 167 645 103 180 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow -0.1% 0.2% -0.1% 0.2% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 31 178 40 176 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 3 14 3 16 Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 Percentage Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) 1.4% 5.4% 1.9% 3.2% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 1.0% 5.6% 1.9% 7.8% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 1.4% 7.7% 2.5% 12.5% Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.0% -0.4% -0.7% 0.0% Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 478 77 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 0.3% 0.4% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 147 136 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 12 13 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.1 0.2 Percentage Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 4.0% 1.4% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 4.6% 5.9% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 6.3% 10.1% Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.4% 0.7% Table 6.1: Summary Statistics for Farnham AQMA site.
Issue No. 01 Page 70 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Godalming AQMA Site
Inbound Outbound Key Statistics 2026 2026 2005 2005 Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 1,842 2,029 2,023 2,025 1,212 1,218 1,262 1,262 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 5.1% 5.2% 5.1% 5.3% 5.8% 6.0% 5.9% 6.1% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 1,095 1,206 1,203 1,204 725 728 755 755 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 32 37 36 37 19 19 20 20 Average Speed (Km/hr) 34.4 32.9 33.0 33.0 39.4 39.4 39.0 39.0 Total Link Length (Km) 1.2 1.2 Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) -5 -4 44 44 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow -0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.1% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) -3 -2 26 26 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 0 0 1 1 Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.4 Percentage Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) -0.3% -0.2% 3.6% 3.5% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) -0.3% -0.2% 3.6% 3.6% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) -0.4% -0.3% 4.6% 4.7% Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.1% 0.1% -0.9% -0.9% Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 2 0 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 0.2% 0.2% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 1 0 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 0 0 Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.0 0.0 Percentage Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 0.1% 0.0% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 0.1% 0.0% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 0.1% 0.1% Average Speed (Km/hr) 0.0% 0.0% Table 6.2: Summary Statistics for Godalming AQMA site.
Issue No. 01 Page 71 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Hindhead AQMA Site
Inbound Outbound Key Statistics 2026 2026 2005 2005 Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Do-Minimum Scenario A Scenario B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 3,911 2,659 2,743 2,876 3,916 2,659 2,743 2,876 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 5.6% 5.3% 5.2% 5.6% 5.2% 5.3% 5.2% 5.6% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 2,254 1,576 1,623 1,705 2,252 1,568 1,616 1,696 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 44 44 45 48 42 43 44 48 Average Speed (Km/hr) 59.0 47.8 47.3 46.7 59.0 47.6 47.2 46.4 Total Link Length (Km) 2.9 1.7 2.9 1.7 Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) 85 217 85 217 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow -0.2% 0.3% -0.2% 0.3% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 47 129 49 128 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 1 5 2 5 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.5 -1.1 -0.5 -1.2 Percentage Difference between Scenario and 2026 Do-Minimum Total Flow (All Vehicles) 3.2% 7.9% 3.2% 7.9% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 3.0% 7.9% 2.2% 8.2% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 3.2% 10.1% 4.0% 11.8% Average Speed (Km/hr) -1.0% -2.3% -0.8% -2.5% Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 132 132 Percentage of HGVS from Total Flow 0.4% 0.4% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 82 79 Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 3 3 Average Speed (Km/hr) -0.6 -0.7 Percentage Difference between Scenarios A and B Total Flow (All Vehicles) 4.8% 4.8% Total Vehicle Kilometrage (Veh Kms) 5.0% 4.9% Total Link Travel Time (Veh Hrs) 7.0% 7.6% Average Speed (Km/hr) -1.3% -1.5% Table 6.3: Summary Statistics for Hindhead AQMA site
Issue No. 01 Page 72 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
6.2.7 It is important to note that two networks were used in the assessment of the AQMA’s summary statistics, like the main results of the report. A 2005 network representing the network in its current state and a 2026 network including the HA’s Hindhead Improvement Scheme.
6.2.8 Table 6.1 displays the summary statistics for the Farnham AQMA site. There is a larger flow in an inbound direction to the town centre, in the AM peak hour (0800 – 0900), than in an outbound direction. This is to be expected as this trend in flow is portraying normal commuting patterns to a town centre in the morning peak hour. When comparing the statistics for the different directions, there is a difference in total link length assessed. The inbound direction contains 0.5km more link length than the outbound direction (2.5km), this is because the inbound direction contains the one-way system of Farnham. In both directions, Scenario B has the largest impacts on the local road network of the Farnham AQMA. For example Scenario B, in both directions, has a larger proportion of HGVs than Scenario A: 0.3% increase for inbound direction and 0.4% increase for outbound direction. In addition Scenario B has a greater amount of vehicle kilometres travelled in comparison to Scenario A: 147vkm (4.6% increase) in an inbound direction and 136vkm (5.9% increase) in an outbound direction.
6.2.9 The summary statistics for the Godalming AQMA site are presented in Table 6.2. The summary statistics indicate that the flow in a northbound direction is much larger than the southbound direction, in the 2005 base and all forecast scenarios. However, the impacts presented by Scenario A and B on the Godalming AQMA are minimal. For instance in a northbound directions the test scenarios present minimally smaller impacts than the 2026 Do-Minimum; a 0.3% (Scenario A) and a 0.2% (Scenario B) reduction in vehicle kilometres compared tot the 2026 Do- Minimum. The difference between the impacts presented by Scenarios A and B are minor, for example, in both directions the largest difference in any of the statistics is 0.1%.
6.2.10 The Hindhead AQMA site is positioned in a key area that will be affected by changes in the road network related to the HA’s Hindhead Improvement Scheme, Hindhead Crossroads. In 2005 the following links are present in the AQMA site: A287 Tilford Road; A3 London Road; A287 Hindhead Road; and A3 Portsmouth Road. However, in the 2026 network the A3 London Road arm of the junction will no longer exist. This provides an explanation as to why the link length displayed in Table 6.3 differs between the 2005 base (2.9 km) and the 2026 forecasts (1.7 km). This reduction in the size of links in the Hindhead AQMA in 2026, explains the large reduction in summary statistics between the 2005 base and 2026 Do- Minimum e.g. reduction in flow of 1,252 vehicles in an inbound direction and reduction of 1,257 vehicles in an outbound direction. Scenario B presents larger traffic impacts than Scenario A. For instance in an inbound direction vehicle kilometres are 5% more in Scenario B and an average speed reduction of 1.3% when compared to Scenario A. In an outbound direction vehicle kilometres increase by 4.9% and average speed reduces by 1.5% in Scenario B, when compared with Scenario A.
Issue No. 01 Page 73 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Summary
7.1.1 The aim of this study was to provide WBC with an initial assessment, in transport terms, of their LDF Core Strategy by considering the impact the proposed additional residential and commercial development would have on the highway network at a strategic level.
7.1.2 The main objectives of the evaluation were to:
Identify the locations and estimates of two scenarios (Scenario A and Scenario B) of additional residential and commercial development in the borough for the forecast year of 2026; Compare the traffic impacts for these developments by developing traffic models for the forecast year and for the current situation (taken as 2005); To develop specific forecasts for: 2026 Do-Minimum 2026 Scenario A 2026 Scenario B To provide comparisons between the forecast scenarios and their relevant reference cases.
7.1.3 2026 trip generation forecasts within the Borough of Waverley were derived from planning data obtained from WBC, use of the TRICS database and TEMPRO growth factors. These were used to develop 2026 forecast matrices to input into the SINTRAM strategic traffic model.
7.1.4 The 2026 forecast scenarios were based on a network that included the Hindhead Improvement Scheme. Therefore two networks were used in the modelling process, a 2005 network representing the network in its current state and a 2026 network that included the 2026 Highways Agency Hindhead Improvement Scheme, which incorporates dualling the remaining single carriageway section of the A3.
7.1.5 The modelling of these forecast scenarios enabled broad comparisons to be made between forecast and base years, together with differences between the scenarios themselves.
7.2 Traffic Impacts of Development
7.2.1 The Scenario A and B planning data differ only by their definition of approved and non-approved development by planning permission. Scenario A represents development that has been approved by planning permission only. Whereas Scenario B represents all development, irrespective of whether it has been approved by planning permission or not. Therefore Scenario B consists of approved and non- approved development.
7.2.2 The travel matrix forecasts illustrating growth in traffic is shown below in Table 7.1.
Issue No. 01 Page 74 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
AM Vehicle Trips 2005 Base 2026 Do-Minimum 2026 Scenario A 2026 Scenario B Waverley Intra Borough Trips 1,232 1,129 1,223 1,684 External to Borough Trips 6,515 6,550 6,743 8,674 Borough to External Trips 11,174 11,277 11,925 12,782 Table 7.1: Summary Trip Matrix, AM Peak Hour
7.2.3 The model suggests that total non-trunk road traffic flow within Waverley during the AM peak hour would increase by approximately 10,100vkm (3.2%) in 2026 Scenario A when compared with the 2026 Do-Minimum. In 2026 Scenario B traffic flow would increase by approximately 36,400vkm (11%) when compared with 2026 Scenario A.
7.2.4 The model suggests that total trunk road (A3) traffic flow generated within Waverley during the AM peak hour would increase by approximately 1,300vkm (3.9%) in 2026 Scenario A when compared to 2026 Do-Minimum. In 2026 Scenario B, trunk road traffic flow would increase approximately by 3,100vkm (9%) when compared to 2026 Scenario A.
7.2.5 By comparing summary statistics and plots of traffic flows it is apparent that out of the two scenarios, 2026 Scenario B has the greatest impacts on local traffic flows in Waverley. 2026 Scenario B will increase traffic flow and reduce average speed on the local road network more than Scenario A. However, it should be noted that the differences between Scenarios A and B are small (under 19% increase in all summary statistics) and any increases displayed in Scenario B are not significant to cause any large disruption to the road network in Waverley or nearby areas.
7.2.6 It is unsurprising that Scenario B has the largest impacts, as this is the scenario that represents the largest amount of additional trips generated by WBC planning data. Scenario B (approved and non-approved development) represents a worst-case scenario within the context of this evaluation.
7.2.7 The distinct areas in the Borough of Waverley which will be affected most by the additional trips generated from the proposed residential and commercial developments are the four main urban settlements: Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Haslemere. Specifically Farnham and surrounding areas that are in close proximity to the A31 corridor, between the Runfold Junction and the Hickleys Corner, are to feel the highest impacts in increased traffic flow. This area could potentially be impacted by a general increase in link and junction delay.
7.2.8 Further measures may be thought necessary to implement in parts of the borough i.e. the A31 corridor, although greater investigation would be needed to confirm this. However, it is suggested that if any improvement plans were implemented then it would be beneficial to do this using a holistic approach.
7.2.9 From investigating the potential affects on the three AQMA sites in Waverley it is clear that all will be impacted by the new trips, generated by the proposed commercial and residential developments in 2026. Scenario A has the least impacts on the AQMA sites whereas Scenario B has the greatest impacts. However, these traffic impacts are minimal within the AQMA sites and are not thought to cause any major detrimental affects.
Issue No. 01 Page 75 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX A – Residential Planning Data, Completions
Houses/Bungalows Flats/Maisonettes TOTAL Total Gross Ward Ward Name Dwelling Code 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 2 3 4 5+ 1 2 3 4 5+ Completed TOTAL TOTAL Unknown Unknown Unknown 43ULGF Alfold Cranleigh Rural and Ellens Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43ULGG Blackheath and Wonersh Ward 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 5 43ULGH Bramley, Busbridge and Hascombe Ward 1 1 3 2 0 1 8 2 6 0 1 0 0 9 3 7 3 3 0 1 17 43ULGJ Chiddingfold and Dunsfold Ward 0 7 4 10 0 0 21 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 8 4 10 0 0 23 43ULGK Cranleigh East Ward 0 36 31 4 5 1 77 4 24 0 0 0 0 28 4 60 31 4 5 1 105 43ULGL Cranleigh West Ward 0 1 4 4 2 1 12 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 4 4 2 1 15 43ULGM Elstead and Thursley Ward 0 23 19 6 2 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 19 6 2 0 50 43ULGN Ewhurst Ward 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 43ULGP Farnham Bourne Ward 0 0 2 11 5 0 18 0 13 0 0 0 1 14 0 13 2 11 5 1 32 43ULGQ Farnham Castle Ward 0 10 7 0 0 0 17 33 12 2 0 0 0 47 33 22 9 0 0 0 64 43ULGR Farnham Firgrove Ward 0 3 5 5 2 0 15 0 5 5 1 0 0 11 0 8 10 6 2 0 26 43ULGS Farnham Hale and Heath End Ward 0 2 2 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 6 43ULGT Farnham Moor Park Ward 0 10 22 18 4 0 54 15 63 0 0 0 0 78 15 73 22 18 4 0 132 43ULGU Farnham Shortheath and Boundstone Ward 2 2 11 5 1 0 21 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 2 11 11 5 1 0 30 43ULGW Farnham Upper Hale Ward 4 15 7 7 2 0 35 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 6 18 7 7 2 0 40 43ULGX Farnham Weybourne and Badshot Lea Ward 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 1 11 1 0 0 0 13 43ULGY Farnham Wrecclesham and Rowledge Ward 5 34 24 9 3 1 76 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 7 38 24 9 3 1 82 43ULGZ Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford Ward 0 0 2 3 1 1 7 3 3 1 1 0 0 8 3 3 3 4 1 1 15 43ULHA Godalming Binscombe Ward 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 1 0 0 9 43ULHB Godalming Central and Ockford Ward 0 2 1 3 0 0 6 24 58 18 0 0 0 100 24 60 19 3 0 0 106 43ULHC Godalming Charterhouse Ward 0 1 4 1 3 0 9 2 22 0 0 0 0 24 2 23 4 1 3 0 33 43ULHD Godalming Farncombe and Catteshall Ward 2 15 7 3 0 0 27 14 23 2 0 0 0 39 16 38 9 3 0 0 66 43ULHE Godalming Holloway Ward 0 17 31 5 1 0 54 9 6 0 0 0 0 15 9 23 31 5 1 0 69 43ULHF Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill Ward 0 1 1 5 3 0 10 8 30 7 4 0 0 49 8 31 8 9 3 0 59 43ULHG Haslemere East and Grayswood Ward 5 37 41 8 7 0 98 14 30 7 0 0 0 51 19 67 48 8 7 0 149 43ULHH Hindhead Ward 1 16 14 1 0 0 32 12 62 17 0 0 0 91 13 78 31 1 0 0 123 43ULHJ Milford Ward 0 9 6 7 0 0 22 13 14 0 0 0 0 27 13 23 6 7 0 0 49 43ULHK Shamley Green and Cranleigh North 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 43ULHL Witley and Hambledon Ward 0 21 3 3 0 1 28 18 43 5 5 0 0 71 18 64 8 8 0 1 99 TOTAL FOR THE BOROUGH 20 270 254 126 41 7 718 185 440 65 12 0 1 703 205 710 319 138 41 8 1421
Issue No. 01 Page 76 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX B – Residential Planning Data, Outstanding Permissions
HOUSES FLATS Total Dwellings Total Ward Dwellings Ward Name Code 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Outstanding (Gross) TOTAL TOTAL Unknown Unknown Unknown 43ULGF Alfold Cranleigh Rural and Ellens Green 0 2 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 6 43ULGG Blackheath and Wonersh Ward 0 0 4 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 6 43ULGH Bramley, Busbridge and Hascombe Ward 0 4 1 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 7 43ULGJ Chiddingfold and Dunsfold Ward 0 3 5 0 0 8 2 11 1 0 0 14 2 14 6 0 0 22 43ULGK Cranleigh East Ward 0 0 3 4 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 9 43ULGL Cranleigh West Ward 0 0 3 5 0 8 2 8 0 0 0 10 2 8 3 5 0 18 43ULGM Elstead and Thursley Ward 0 5 1 7 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 7 0 13 43ULGN Ewhurst Ward 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 43ULGP Farnham Bourne Ward 1 0 4 12 3 20 1 0 3 1 1 6 2 0 7 13 4 26 43ULGQ Farnham Castle Ward 0 3 10 3 1 17 4 10 0 0 0 14 4 13 10 3 1 31 43ULGR Farnham Firgrove Ward 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 2 2 0 14 43ULGS Farnham Hale and Heath End Ward 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 43ULGT Farnham Moor Park Ward 0 4 16 10 1 31 2 53 0 0 0 55 2 57 16 10 1 86 43ULGU Farnham Shortheath and Boundstone Ward 0 1 3 4 0 8 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 3 3 4 0 11 43ULGW Farnham Upper Hale Ward 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 43ULGX Farnham Weybourne and Badshot Lea Ward 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 43ULGY Farnham Wrecclesham and Rowledge Ward 6 37 31 5 1 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 37 31 5 1 80 43ULGZ Frensham, Dockenfield and Tilford Ward 1 2 2 2 0 7 3 1 0 0 0 4 4 3 2 2 0 11 43ULHA Godalming Binscombe Ward 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 3 43ULHB Godalming Central and Ockford Ward 0 7 11 2 0 20 19 40 0 0 0 59 19 47 11 2 0 79 43ULHC Godalming Charterhouse Ward 0 4 2 11 0 17 0 18 0 0 0 18 0 22 2 11 0 35 43ULHD Godalming Farncombe and Catteshall Ward 1 4 0 0 0 5 3 12 0 0 0 15 4 16 0 0 0 20 43ULHE Godalming Holloway Ward 0 2 0 2 0 4 8 9 0 0 0 17 8 11 0 2 0 21 43ULHF Haslemere Critchmere and Shottermill Ward 1 7 2 9 2 21 2 11 0 0 0 13 3 18 2 9 2 34 43ULHG Haslemere East and Grayswood Ward 1 19 12 23 4 59 18 10 4 0 0 32 19 29 16 23 4 91 43ULHH Hindhead Ward 0 17 4 9 3 33 8 8 3 0 0 19 8 25 7 9 3 52 43ULHJ Milford Ward 1 5 0 2 0 8 5 11 0 0 0 16 6 16 0 2 0 24 43ULHK Shamley Green and Cranleigh North 0 1 4 3 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 3 2 10 43ULHL Witley and Hambledon Ward 1 5 1 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 8 TOTAL FOR THE BOROUGH 13 135 130 121 20 419 78 217 11 1 2 309 91 352 141 122 22 728
Issue No. 01 Page 77 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX C – Email Correspondence Regarding Scenarios
Hi Sarah,
I have spoken to Will today about the issues you raised.
We would endeavor to accommodate the completion of this work to your timescales as much as possible. However, we are aware that other LA's are also anticipating receiving support with their LDF and are currently completing our pro-forma, although the are no firm timescale commitments at the moment.
If you were to delay the work at this stage then that's fine, but on the understanding that if we were to have another request before you are ready to recommence then we would have to try to accommodate both LAs as best as possible.
Secondly, you stated that you have been considering other options to be tested and to exclude windfalls. I understand your reasons for suggesting the four scenarios, as it would be a way of experimenting with your distribution. However, we are slightly concerned by the number of scenarios as this would involve a lot more preparatory work i.e. proportioning by population in each zone. I think I have already mentioned that we suggest that you use scenarios that keep the developments which have been approved and non-approved by planning permission separate (such as the scenarios we suggested to you). If we were to incorporate this into the four scenarios, which you have suggested then it, would create a much larger amount of work, scenarios and complication. By undertaking the work with so many scenarios it would be a case of us undertaking more work than is normally offered as support from Surrey County Council.
Furthermore, from the four scenarios you suggested we doubt that there would be a significant amount of difference reported in the outputs from the model, specifically concerning your proposed Scenarios B to D. We will be using a strategic model for the assessment and this is unlikely to report small differences in distribution, particularly in a Borough similar to Waverley.
We are presuming that you may wish to exclude windfalls, as you are worried about you annual average trend being an overestimate. I know you said you are looking into how other LAs calculate windfalls, but it may be wiser to not use the annual trend but instead make general projection e.g 1000 units. This is just an example but it may avoid the issue of overestimation.
We are aware that you are still working on parts of the data, so if you would like another meeting to discuss things then please feel free to request one. We could also possibly offer the attendance of a member of Surrey County Council's Transport and Development Control Team if needed.
Emma Brundle
[email protected] 26/08/09 15:18
Thanks for getting back to me Emma - I do have some further queries that you may be able to assist with...
I have been chatting again to Graham about these options, and we are considering the option of excluding windfalls. As past trends show we have such a high windfall figure it may not be representative of what we would be providing.
In this case we may look to testing a few scenarios based on distribution for example:
Scenario A: Completions, outstanding permissions and identified sites
Issue No. 01 Page 78 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
Scenario B: As above and distributing the residual allocation over the four main urban areas (Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere & Cranleigh). Scenario C: As above, distributing to the four main urban areas plus the five largest villages (Elstead, Milford, Witley, Bramley & Chiddingfold)
Scenario D: As above, distributing to the four urban areas, five largest villages and all other Rural Settlements as defined in the local Plan (Alfold, Alfold Crossways, Churt, Dockenfield, Dunsfold, Grayswood, Hascombe, Rowly, Shamley Green, Thursley, Tilford)
This isn't definite at this stage; I just wanted to find out whether it is possible in terms of your modeling?
Thanks
Sarah Nash
Issue No. 01 Page 79 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX D
TRICS Location Definitions (December 2008) (Taken from TRICS 2009(b)).
Town Centre Within the central core area of the heart of the town/city (e.g. the primary shopping area), as defined in the local development plan (if appropriate).
Edge of Town Centre For retail, a location within easy walking distance (i.e. up to 300 metres) of the central primary shopping area, often providing parking facilities that serve the centre as well as the site, thus enabling one trip to serve several purposes. For other uses, the edge-of-centre radius from the town/city may be more extensive, based on how far people would be prepared to walk. For offices this may be outside the town centre but in the urban area within 500m of a public transport interchange. Local topography and barriers will affect pedestrians’ perceptions of easy walking distance. Examples of barriers include crossing major roads and car parks. The perceived safety of the route and strength of the attraction of the town centre are also relevant.
Neighbourhood Centre Predominantly residential area, but with additional amenities like local shops, schools etc. Could be described as a small “district” or “village” within the town/city itself. Would also apply to actual villages. The local shops serve a small catchment. These may include a general grocery store, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy, as well as others. These centres provide accessible shopping for people’s day-to-day needs.
Suburban Area (Out of Centre) An area outside the edge of the town/city centre, but not at the town/city’s physical edge. This can encompass a wide range of physical locations within a town/city. Suburban Area sites can range from busy built-up areas near the centre of town (but outside the Edge of Town Centre radius), to leafy suburbs far from the centre.
Edge of Town At the physical edge of the town/city, where the town/city meets the countryside. The actual physical distance from the site to the beginning of the countryside can vary proportionately to the size of the town/city.
Free Standing (Out of Town) Just beyond the physical edge of the nearest town/city, or in an isolated rural location (sites in villages are within the Neighbourhood Centre category). The distance from the edge of the town/city, which qualifies a site as Free Standing, is not set, and is instead judged on a site-by-site basis, proportional to the size of the town/city.
Issue No. 01 Page 80 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX E – Farnham AQMA
Issue No. 01 Page 81 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX F – Godalming AQMA
Issue No. 01 Page 82 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01 Transport Evaluation for Waverley Borough Council’s Core Strategy
APPENDIX G – Hindhead AQMA
Issue No. 01 Page 83 of 83 Document No. 3380\WBC\01